 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Expert OpinionExperts in low temperature biology--cryobiologists--are generally not the right "experts" to ask about likely future developments or the assessment of possible scientific developments; and some cryobiologists today are cool toward cryonics -- sometimes for public relations reasons But some highly regarded cryobiologists take a positive view. YURI PICHUGIN is a Ukrainian cryobiologist (University of Kharkov) of many years experience and with many research publications to his credit, and last year was brought to the U.S. to work for a subsidiary of a major university, in cooperation with the most active commercial firm in the mammalian cryopreservation field. An immortalist and cryonicist himself, he is now CI's Director of Research. One of the world's leading researchers in the cryobiology of mammalian organs, is worth quoting at some little length: "It can be stated quite firmly that cell bodies, cell membranes, synapses, mitochondria, general axon and dendrite patterns, metabolites such as nuerotransmitters, chemical constituents such as proteins and nucleic acids, and general brain architecture are preserved reasonably well or excellently with current techniques. The brain can withstand severe mechanical distortion by ice without impairment of subsequent cognition, and a glycerol concentration of 4.15 M can be shown to limit ice formation to quantities currently thought to be consistent with good function or recovery of the intact brain. Contrary to popular imagination, cells never burst as a result of intracellular freezing Hopefully, the point is clear that brain structure and enzymatic activity and even some brain functions survive freezing even when freezing is done after hours of unprotected clinical death and even with minimal or no cryoprotection....Thus, cryonics' premise of preservation would seem to be well supported by existing cryobiological knowledge. This is not to say that cryonics will inevitably work. But it is to say that cryonics may work." K. ERIC DREXLER is a driving force in the new and exploding field of "nanotechnology" or molecular engineering or "tinytech," designing techniques and machines to work at the sub-microscopic level--machines which may eventually repair and rejuvenate the human body, working from the inside. Such machines were predicted by Nobel physicist Richard Feynman, and already have many precursors including the Scanning Tunneling Microscope, which can "feel" and even manipulate matter at the atomic level. On the topic of negative statements by cryobiologists, Dr. Drexler says, in part: "Of course, these were the wrong experts to ask. The question called for experts on molecular technology and cell repair machines. These cryobiologists should have said only that correcting freezing damage would apparently require molecular-level repairs, and that they, personally, had not studied the matter. Instead, the effect was to misinform the public on a matter of vital importance." He is optimistic about the success of biostasis--even by methods that do much more functional damage than freezing, such as chemical fixation plus vitrification. JAMES B. LEWIS, a researcher in molecular biology at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, writes: "It is my firm belief that [nanotechnology] will have far-reaching consequences, including the possibility of reanimating cryogenically preserved individuals and providing them with healthy new versions of their own bodies....[It is reasonable for] individuals to decide whether or not they are interested in gambling for the possibility of a long and healthy life in the future, for themselves and/or for their loved ones." PIERRE BOUTRON is a French cryobiologist with many publications to his credit, and on the editorial board of the U.S. and international publication Cryobiology. Dr. Boutron is an immortalist, and author of Le Virus de Jouvence. Are The Experts Always Right? "Expert" opinions are often helpful, and an expert majority is often right. But before you take the advice of the experts to lie down and die quietly, it might be wise to recall some of the embarrassing (and sometimes tragic) mistakes of experts in the past. "YOU'VE GOT TO HURT!" In 1839 the eminent surgeon Dr. Alfred Velpeau said, "The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera." Seven years later came the bell-ringing use of ether anaesthesia by Morton & Warren. Forty seven years earlier Sir Humphrey Davy had suggested the use of nitrous oxide anaesthesia. "YOU'LL NEVER KNOW!" In 1835 the world-renowned savant Dr. August Comte gave an example of something humans could never possibly know--the chemical composition of the stars. About twenty years later Kirchhoff invented the spectroscope, which told us more about the chemical composition of some stars than was known about the composition of the earth. "YOU CAN'T HAVE ELECTRIC LIGHTS!" In 1878 a committee of leading British experts convened to study the feasibility of electric lights--on which Thomas Edison was already working--and concluded that this idea was "unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men. " "NO INTERCONTINENTAL MISSILES IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE! " It wasn't some old fuddy-duddy who said this, but the brilliant and productive Vannevar Bush. This was virtually at the same time the Russians were building one. "STEAMBOATS? FORGET IT! " Napoleon Bonaparte to Robert Fulton: "You expect a ship to sail against the winds and currents by building a bonfire under her decks? Forgive me, Sir; I have no time for such nonsense." "MAN WILL NOT FLY FOR A THOUSAND YEARS!" Want to guess who said this? None other than Wilbur Wright himself in 1901, after one of the brothers' discouraging failures! "THERE'S NO TOMORROW!" In 1899 the director of the Patent Office recommended that office's abolition, saying that everything that could conceivably be invented had already been invented. And here are a few more recent examples: In 1943 someone said, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Guess who it was? Some ignoramus? It was Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM. In 1949 someone said, "We have reached the limits of what is possible with computers." Guess who? John von Neumann, one of the greatest mathematicians of the century. In 1981 someone said, "640,000 bytes of memory ought to be enough for anybody." Guess who. Bill Gates, no less. Don't let any majority vote you into the grave. And if any "experts" allow as how freezing is a waste of money and effort, get another opinion. Yours. The real point is that an "expert" in medicine, or in cryobiology, can tell you a lot about the present state of the art--but typically very little about the future. In many cases, they can't see the forest for the trees. Eminent pollster the late George Gallup once did a study showing that, in predicting the future, laymen did better than the experts in their own fields. Sure, optimists are often wrong too--maybe more often than pessimists. But the bottom line, once more, is that if you bet on life and lose, you have lost nothing--you would have been dead anyway. But if you bet on life and win, you have gained everything. Expert Testimony Though we have previously outlined the rationale for cryonic suspension, some readers--or their advisers--will want more detail on the cryobiological background and evidence. Because most people are inclined to respect the opinions of professionals and "experts," it is extremely important to understand that, when investigating cryonics, you will almost always get a misinformed or/and misleading opinion from physicians and scientists--including cryobiologists! For example, on Oct. 3, 1990, on a TV program in Australia (the Peter Couchman program in Melbourne), Alan Trounsen spoke against cryonics, saying that all mammalian cells freeze with ice forming inside the cells, even at slow cooling rates and with cryoprotectant present, and therefore cryonics patients are reduced to chewed-up debris by this intracellular ice. Now, Dr. Trounsen actually freezes human embryos for transplant; that makes him an expert in cryobiology generally--right? Wrong. The frozen human embryos are extremely tiny, only a few cells altogether, and can indeed form ice inside the cells if frozen too fast (although even that would not necessarily rule out future repair); but, beyond the embryonic stage, humans and their organs are alwavs frozen slowly--you couldn't freeze them quickly if you wanted to, short of high pressure methods. The upshot is that, in practice, ice never forms inside the cells, but in the spaces between the cells, where the damage is relatively limited. Well, if an actual cryobiologist can blunder so, what can you expect of an ordinary physician or scientist? Similar or worse blunders. A typical remark: "Water expands when it freezes, and ice will burst the cells, destroying them." As noted, ice never does form in the patients' cells; and even if it did, the 10% expansion would not come near to bursting them. Links at the bottom of this page includes are excerpts from an affidavit of an expert in relevant cryobiology-- a leading researcher in cryobiology of mammalian organs, including the brain. Those who want to check the original court docurnent are referred to Case No. 191277, Kent v. Coroner, Superior Court, County of Riverside, California, Appendix of Declarations, dated Feb. 1, 1988. (The cryonics people won the case, and the coroner was enjoined against interfering with the cryonics operation.) It's Your Choice Of course, even if your medical/scientific adviser reads this material carefully and understands it, he may still be negative, a typical remark being, "Don't do it until success is proven--even if there is no other chance, even if you will already be legally dead; don't spend your money, or your estate's money--give it to your relatives, or to a worthy cause." But at that point you are talking values, and your opinion is as good as his. And it's your money--and your life.
|