X-Message-Number: 16548 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:47:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Re: Research strategy and purpose (re: message 16336) On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 wrote: > The three positions that Charles has taken, for example in message 16336, are: > > (1) CI's efforts at outside validation for its protocols are unreasonable > because they only involve CI's own procedures I'm reluctant to reopen this, because I don't have time to follow the topic, and I think I said all I really had to say. But I would not agree with Dan's use of the word "unreasonable." I would prefer to say something like, "of limited value." I believe the most productive approach in any specialized field of research is to be inclusive rather than exclusive. In a nonspecialized field, the quantity of data may be so great, no one has time to review it all; but certainly in cryobiology, it should be possible for any serious research effort to assimilate all the significant work and build on it, rather than ignore it. Presumably Dr. Pichugin does have a thorough, inclusive background and his presence in CI research may change everything. In the past, however, I have seen the old "not invented here" syndrome. Also I have seen the work of cryobiologists deprecated merely because they are cryobiologists, hence hostile to cryonics, hence untrustworthy. Conversely I have seen amazing (and, as it turned out, unwarranted) credulity toward the claims of Olga Visser, whose anti-scientific-establishment attitude seemed to resonate with the outlook at CI. I think if CI had been more receptive to conventional cryobiology research, it might have chosen to start ramping perfusion concentration in 1991 rather than in 2001, just to take one obvious example. --CP Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16548