X-Message-Number: 2529 Subject: More on High Temp. CRYONICS From: (Ben Best) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 03:25:00 -0500 COMMENTS ON MIKE DARWIN'S REPLY TO "HIGH TEMPERATURE CRYONICS" My purpose in writing this piece is to elevate the consciousness of readers concerning both technical and nontechnical issues. I intend to include personality factors because, like it or not, science involves co-operation -- and sometimes the way scientists treat each other can be more critical to the progress of science than technical issues. When I first became very serious about my interest in anti-mortalism six years ago, I had little confidence in the ability of cryonics organizations to survive 100 years. I took great interest in preservation methods that do not require cryonics organizations -- in particular permafrost burial and chemical preservatin. I joined Alcor nearly 4 years ago, and my confidence in the ability of Alcor to survive reached a peak 2 years ago. Currently, my confidence in the ability of any organization to survive 100 years has fallen to about 5%. Thus, in calculating my "expected value" of survival, a biostasis method requiring a surviving cryonics organization must be TWENTY TIMES better from a technical point of view in order to give me a utility equivalent to a biostasis method that does not require ongoing maintenance. Biostasis alternatives to cryonics have been an important theme in my contributions to CANADIAN CRYONICS NEWS during the past 5 years. In my 3 years as editor of CCN I have had contributions from Douglas Skrecky in every single issue. Douglas never graduated from university, but he is a diligent researcher. Spending hours in university libraries is his idea of a good time. Douglas can be woefully ignorant in some ways and yet still come up with insights and information. I have often commented on Douglas' articles in CCN -- sometimes quite critically -- but I don't want to discourage him. To me his piece "High Temperature Cryonics" was an incremental addition to his on-going theme, and I don't feel the need to comment on EVERY article Douglas writes. Regular readers should know some of my general criticisms. Just over a year ago I decided to make a more systematized attempt to study preservation methods, including freezing, chemical preservation and dehydration. The first step in this process has been to try to understand WHAT structures in the brain need to be preserved as a prelude to trying to understand HOW to preserve those structures. Therefore, in the last year my technical contributions to CCN have concentrated on my series "The Anatomical Basis of Mind". I am still reluctant to comment on preservation issues, but Steve Bridge's request that I post Douglas Skrecky's article on CryoNet (and Mike Darwin's reply) have forced my hand. First of all, I will acknowledge that I think Douglas' idea of blowing air through the circulatory system sounds ridiculous to me. I also think that Douglas does not pay adequate attention to issues of ischemic injury -- despite the fact that he has written an article on the subject of autolysis. I was doubtful about the feasibility of perfusing with high sucrose concentrations, but had not looked-up quantitative viscosity as Mike has done. Also, I had not known that dry ice costs twice as much (by weight?) as liquid nitrogen. But with all these problems, I still think that it is a mistake to dismiss Douglas Skrecky as a crackpot. Mike Darwin has defended himself against the Chamberlains in the December CRYONICS magazine by accusing them of only judging people in black or white -- protesting that he is fallable, but not therefore totally reprehensible. Yet he will not think of Douglas in the same terms, saying that "one of the frustrating things about Mr. Skrecky's writing/thought is that he articulately blends complex fact with distortion/misunderstanding so seamlessly as to make the latter seem credible". When Douglas is neither a perfect scientist nor a perfect crank, Mike becomes frustrated and suspects diabolical motives. Both Thomas Donaldson and Mike Darwin slam Douglas unmercifully over the fact that sucrose does not perfuse into cells. Yet Mike later acknowledges that GLYCEROL is not perfusing into cells during cryonic suspensions. Someone could probably make a good case for the idea that cryonicists are hoaxsters using glycerol as a dehydrant while implying that it is vitrifying cells. In fact, a major thrust to Douglas' writing has been the value of sugars to protect cell membranes in desiccation. Greg Fahy's major criticism of freeze-drying is membrane damage, and I think it is possible that sugars could contribute to alleviating this problem. Sugars do, in fact, also have cryoprotectant qualities -- they are an important component of the physiology of arctic insects. I believe we have much more to learn about the value of sugars as cryoprotectants and membrane protectants. Mike also faults Douglas for commenting on the protective function sugars have for proteins without making reference to enzymes. First of all, I think protecting structure may be more important than protecting enzymes -- especially if DNA is preserved to regenerate the latter. Secondly, this objection is ironic in light of the fact that one theory of cryoprotectant toxicity is that (nonsugar) cryoprotectants may denature enzymes. I do indeed think that Mike's complaints about Douglas' use of the word "frozen" rather than "vitrified" is very close to a semantic quibble. Of course, Greg Fahy would never do such a thing when writing in CRYOBIOLOGY, but I think it is fairly clear from the context that Douglas meant "vitrified". In Douglas Skrecky's writings I find errors, new information and material about which I am unable to assess the scientific merit. If CANADIAN CRYONICS NEWS were a prestigious scientific journal I might be more concerned. But CCN is really an exploratory, unpretentious little magazine with 50 subscribers, who should know by now that my policy (similar to CryoNet's) is "caveat emptor" -- let the reader beware. I will not publish unmitigated crap, but Douglas' writings cannot be described in those terms. If Douglas' article were patent clap-trap, I don't believe Mike would have expended the obvious effort he did on refutation. I reject accusations of "irresponsibility". I believe my publication/posting has produced more benefit than harm. Let us not forget the "responsible" magazine CRYOBIOLOGY which rejects papers which could favor cryonics -- or the panel of "experts" who "responsibly" made cryonics illegal in British Columbia. If Mike has a different perception of the scientific merits of an article, does that make me "irresponsible" for not agreeing with his point of view? The final question I want to address is the condescending and insulting arrogance of Mike Darwin's scientific posture. Mike is woefully inept in the area of mathematics, yet he begs indulgence of others for this failing. Yet while Mike does not understand "the language of science", he contemptuously refers to those who lack his command of cryobiology as "scientifically naive". (Michael Faraday was also mathematically ignorant, yet still able to make great scientific contributions -- I am only faulting Mike's attitude.) Mike, I will tell you point-blank that I believe that the hardest thing about working with your would be your intolerance of ignorance. I believe this is also at the root of many of your problems in working with Alcor people. If you use your knowledge of cryonics as a bludgeon, you may command respect, but you won't win many friends. There is more to being a teacher than having knowledge -- you need to have empathy for those who do not have your knowledge. Moreover, the implication that the President of Alcor should be humiliated for having requested that I post "High Temperature Cryonics" is utterly reprehensible to me. Steve Bridge is not a pompous bureaucrat who masks his ignorance. Acknowledging ignorance is the first step in the acquisition of knowledge, and those who refuse to make such acknowledgement are severely handicapped. Steve's willingness to seek the truth commands my highest respect. I very much hope that Steve will not be so embarressed by this incident as to withdraw from scientific inquiry. I have said some harsh things about Mike Darwin, but I do hope that this does not lead to mutual recrimination. I respect Mike's knowledge, his devotion and even his integrity. And I even appreciate what I and others have learned from his response to "High Temperature Cryonics" (which makes me glad I published and posted it). I simply believe that if he can learn more empathy for the ignorance of others, his vast knowledge will be of more service both to himself and to the cryonics community. -- Ben Best (ben.best%) Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2529