X-Message-Number: 6983
From: Brian Wowk <>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 23:15:58 -0500
Subject: Disclosure

Forward from sci.cryonics:

In <> Terry Lambert <> writes:

>When I say "hard scientist", I refer to methodology, not framed
>pieces of vellum.

	With no previous publications, the only people who know
her methodology are the signatories to her non-disclosure agreement.
While the result stands regardless, the real issue here is the
interpretation of that result: What it means for organ
cryopreservation, what it means for cryonics.  I do not believe
a breakthrough for human heart cryopreservation can be claimed until
a slow cooling success is demonstrated.  I do not believe a monoagent
can be upheld as a breakthrough for cryopreservation of other organs
until it is tested on other organs (because there is no "design space"
with a monoagent).  I do not believe a monoagent can be upheld as
a breakthrough for cryonics until it is tested on brains.

	It's entirely possible that all these issues will be
resolved with positive outcome, in which case we have a MAJOR
breakthrough.  I will then eat my crow, take my lumps, and join the
chorus of praise.  In the meantime I hope some slow cooling experiments
and brain EMs get done.    


>1)	The paper was submitted for publication far in advance
>	of the announcement.

	The paper was submitted in December, 1995.  Recent media
coverage is merely the latest upstirring of coverage that was
initiated (internationally) in October, 1995.  Attempts to
interpret the significance of the work for cryonics since that
time (based on limited media information instead of a paper)
have been met with flames.   


>2)	The announcement doesn't claim that cryosuspension of
>	a whole human being and subsequent revival following
>	a one year period of prolonged suspension has taken
>	place (the cryonics equivalent of the touted "cold
>	fusion breakthrough").

	Nor did Ponds and Fleishman claim to have built a
power station.  Since you raised the issue of "standards
of disclosure", I assert that media announcements months before
a paper is even submitted is NOT the standard of disclosure that
scientists should aspire to.  It makes objective verification
of claims (especially *interpretive* claims) virtually impossible.
The difficulties of such disclosures should be especially apparent 
in the case of new scientists with unknown work.

	It's possible that by proceeding as she did, the work
will see human application sooner than it would have otherwise.
On the other hand, by not following conventional standards, and
by making extreme claims, she may have harmed herself in
ways that will delay this work more than it would have been
otherwise.  

	One unfortunate outcome of all this is that other
organ cryopreservation labs and other cryonics companies may 
now also feel pressure from their investors and members to mount
media extravaganzas prior to publication to stay competitive.
The end result will be that scientists in general will take 
a dim view of these fields.  And that is certainly not the goal
we should be working toward.	


>  	It claimed far less, in fact,
>	than the rabbit liver vitrification study has claimed.

	There have been no media releases about vitrification.
There have been no claims that reversible vitrification of
every organ in the body can be achieved in two years.

>	the only
>	new thing here is that a reexamination of a supposedly
>	"dead end technique" has yielded interesting results
>	potentially applicable to cryonics.

	Agreed.


>Seriously, I don't see why there should be any more skepticism
>than there would be from parallel development of vitrification
>techniques by a heretofore unheard of agency.  There is a lot
>of gritching over the method, when the effect is well known to
>be achievable otherwise.

	Again, the issue at this point is not the authenticity
of the result, but the broader interpretation of that result
as currently obtained.

***************************************************************************
Brian Wowk          CryoCare Foundation               1-800-TOP-CARE
President           Human Cryopreservation Services   
   http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6983