X-Message-Number: 3156 Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 23:58:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Comments needed! Date sent: 17-SEP-1994 23:48:31 >Path: bionet!agate!spool.mu.edu!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!hardy.u.washington.edu!rbradbur >From: (Robert Bradbury) >Newsgroups: sci.med,bionet.molbio.ageing >Subject: Cryopreservation in life extension [was Re: Tortoises & cryonics] >Summary: Medical techniques to preserve tissue are important to life extension. >Keywords: cryonics, life extension, genetic engineering >Message-ID: <> >Date: 27 May 92 19:01:22 GMT >References: <> <1992May21.111046.1967 > <> <> >Sender: (USENET News System) >Followup-To: bionet.molbio.ageing >Organization: University of Washington, Seattle >Lines: 89 >Xref: bionet sci.med:26918 bionet.molbio.ageing:259 > >In article <> writes: >> >>In article <> Gordon Banks writes: >>> There is a good chance that within a century or so we will have the >>> capabilities of engineering germ cell lines to the point that almost >>> any characteristic could be programmed into the individual. It is here >>> that the most likely promise of "immortality" lies, not in cryonics. >>> By the time the technology to revive these frozen fossils is in place >>> (if ever), those who would be doing the reviving may look upon the >>> frozen specimens as genetically hopeless and have no desire to resurrect >>> such poor specimens. >> >>Yes, any approach to immortality other than improving the germ line by >>introducing improved repair and error correction mechanisms into our >>DNA is an exercise in futility! Once this is understood, one begins >>to question the current direction of medical research which, at best, >>will extend our lives by only a few years. >> > >I agree with Larry that our current medical research (most of it) is >misdirected. This is beca. >use as he points out it increases our life for only >a few years and most importantly increases those years at an ever increasing >cost per additional unit of lifetime. This reaches the point (as it >did with my grandmother) where the final years of her life cost society >(the state of Massachusetts) more than she made in her entire lifetime. >Another example would be the recent case, I think it was in Pennsylvania, >where a man in his 30's or 40's was about to undergo his 3rd transplant >operation (due to failures of the first two). In that case I would bet >his health care costs would exceed his future lifetime potential earnings. > >In my opinion medical research funding and health care coverage should >be directed directly towards efforts which will provide the greatest >benifit for the lowest cost (invoking the principle of utilitarianism as well >as good economics). The politicians and the medical community need to start >making it clear to people that if we are going to use "public" monies they >should be used to provide the greatest benifit to the greatest number of >people possible. However this in no way should preclude individuals from >investing/spending their own monies on life preserving/reanimation >technologies. > >Now, one must ask where cryonics fits in. If one accepts that in the long >term we will engineer ourselves to have longer lives then one has to agree >that the major cause of unplanned death will be accidents. In situations >such as this the ability to lower the body temperature to allow extended >microsurgery, to pull replacement organs out of a freezer or keep a person >in a "suspended state" while a new organ is cloned and grown will play >critical roles in preserving life when it would otherwise be impossible. >The only way around this is to argue that we can engineer "instantaneous" >regrowth of vital organs or we will have replacement "machines" for all >bodily functions. I have to believe that the first is unlikely and the >second would probably be more. > expensive and less effective than "real organs". >So one can see an important place for cold storage of tissues with varying >degrees of "aliveness" in the general scheme of life preservation. > >This leads us to look at where cryonics funding is today. If people go >down to their health sciences library and pull out "Cryobiology" they will >find many articles done by "real" scientists researching things like blood and >organ preservation and the effects of cold storage on tissue samples preserved >for long term research. The HIV labs at major research centers have large >numbers of lymphocytes from patients preserved in LN for the purpose of >studying disease progression and drug efficacy. To argue that funding for >this type of research is irrelevant is to ignore the threat posed by HIV. > >Research in cryobiology is progressing rapidly considering how little funding >there actually is for it. Lymphocytes properly frozen can be preserved for >years and thawed out with 70%-80% viability. Obviously these will need to >be improved for nerve tissue but numbers in this range are probably fine >for young liver, kidney and muscle tissue given that one probably loses >20-30% or more of these cells over a normal lifetime anyway. It is also >worth noting that this type of research will end up lowering the costs >of blood and organs by allowing their long term storage. > >So to argue that cryopreservation is "irrelevant" or "futile" is to ignore >the current uses for the technology and the pace at which it has advanced >over the last 20 years. To argue we shouldn't be doing this type of >research one needs to offer alternate forms of research which would >provide equivalent benifits at a lower cost. And finally to argue that >cryonic preservation of human tissue with its potential reanimation is >never going to work is akin to arguing that we will never get 1 billion >transistors on a chip. > >From where I stand (a moderatly well informed programmer/biologist) >I would guess freezing organs by 20. >00 and the 1 billion transistor chip >by 2005. The cloning of an individual may not be until 2030+ and the >ability to realize brain transplants/nanotechnology 2050-2100(?). >This makes me think that the current "flaw" in the whole cryonics >preservation game is that of preserving only the quiescent heads. >These non-talking heads :) will have to wait much longer for reanimation >than those who go the whole body route. I came across this discussion on WWW. I would appreciate users opinion on it. Jan (John) Coetzee. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3156