X-Message-Number: 2298
From: Ben Best <>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 20:00:00 -0400
Subject: CRYONICS:more on openness


   I posted a message to solicit help for Charles Platt on how much
openness and honesty he should use in writing about cryonics. I was
hoping to compensate for having redirected the question toward
CRYONICS magazine at the Memorial Weekend Cryonics Conference.
Ironically, the only response is from Charles, asking about CRYONICS
magazine. Perhaps others intend comments, but I already want to qualify
my previous message.

   Yes, I do want more honesty and openness in CRYONICS magazine. In
saying this, I want to stress that I am not making and don't want to
make a personal attack on Ralph and Alcor staff. I am just saying that
I don't like seeing problems glossed-over. Similarly, I'm sure that
during the Boston Suspension, Mike Darwin did not really want to drive
Stanley out of cryonics activism by chewing him out over not shaving.
I'm sure that what Mike wanted was more professionalism among Alcor
volunteers during a suspension.

   Also, I am not claiming that either Mike Darwin or I am flawlessly
honest and open. Deciding what to express and what not to express is a
tough judgement call.

   I am aware of my own advocacy. In discussing freeze-damage I (and
perhaps even Mike Darwin) have (has) a hard time avoiding a
double-standard. To non-cryonicists, my tendency is to emphasize that
damage does not necessarily mean destruction, and that future technology
will be capable of molecular-level repair. To cryonicists I emphasize
that freezing-damage is far too great in the context of our current
ignorance of the anatomical basis of mind. There is so much research
to be done and there are so many improvements that can be made, my
advocacy here is toward getting cryonicists to help fund more research.

   I think it is human nature, and not unreasonable, that the greatest
honesty and openness is saved for personal, one-on-one communication.
More candor is to be expected on CryoNet and at a Cryonics Conference
than in CRYONICS magazine or a book about cryonics. But even from an
advocacy standpoint, problems cannot be ignored. Chances are very great
that non-cryonicists will know about "cutting off heads", the thawed
bodies of Chatsworth, freezing-damage and the Dora Kent case. These
*must* be addressed and explained or the reader will not be persuaded.

    On the other hand, non-cryonicists are unlikely to know that someone
absconded $100,000 of Alcor money during the Dora Kent case. The
temptation to resist mentioning this is very great. Similarly, the
"political" and personal conflicts within the cryonics community can
have a devestating effect on the perceived workability of cryonics --
and discussing these issues seems like a can-of-worms I'd rather not
open. One person in Toronto has told me that he terminated his sign-up
process with Alcor after reading "Time for a Change".

   To answer Charles, yes, my trust in the truthfulness of the material
in CRYONICS magazine has been eroding. Image-manipulation is a dangerous
business and the short-term gains from a pleasant fabrication can easily
be devestated by a single exposure.

      -- Ben Best (ben.best%)


P.S. I believe Brian Wowk is wrong to claim that cryoprotectants act
through dehydration. Dehydration occurs *without* cryoprotectant. The
migration of water to the extracellular space during slow freezing is
the reason that Audrey Smith was able to recover hamsters frozen to
the point where 60% of brain water was ice. But too much cell
dehydration results in denatured intracellular protein. The basis of
cryoprotectant action is the vitrification of intracellular fluids,
since intracellular ice is the worst source of freezing damage. My main
concern about the use of glycerol is that it may not be perfusing into
the cells adequately to vitrify and -- worse -- simply (osmotically)
squeezing more water out of cell tissue rather than vitrifying.
--

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2298