X-Message-Number: 5376
From: 
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 13:41:14 -0500
Subject: suspended animation

Interesting that some talk about broadly-defined suspended animation should
appear today. Yesterday a man named Karl Schreier (an Alcor member) visited
Alcor and also visited me, and talked with Hugh Hixon and with me about some
of his research ideas.

He has some background in biology, although not a doctorate, and his
livelihood is in the business world. One of his ideas is that there should be
a research focus on suspended animation in the range roughly - 2.5 C to 10 C.

This would involve what he calls "assisted low temperature homeostasis." From
perhaps 10 to 30 metabolites would be monitored and, where necessary,
corrected or supplemented. Because of the  reduced rate of metabolism and
other processes, and because the patient or experimental subject is still
autonomously maintaining most of its homeostatic functions, he thinks such a
patient might be maintained for considerable periods. If the period were very
long (highly unlikely, I'd say) we would have an alternative (probably very
expensive) to cryostasis; in any event there would be obvious and significant
implications for clinical medicine and transplant surgery. He estimates a
cost of $50,000 for equipment and $20-30,000/year for the work. (He is also
interested in getting Ukrainians to do research, but warns that most former
Soviets have been taught to lie, cheat, and steal in order to survive and
must be approached with extreme distrust; I told him I was convinced that did
not apply at all to Dr. Pichugin.)

I suggested that he run his ideas past BioTime and BioPreservation and Greg
Fahy. (He is attending the upcoming A4M meeting in Las Vegas.) No doubt he
would like any other input also. Fax (315) 265-0471.

My own reaction is one of skepticism, as I told him; I can think of
countless potential obstacles or serious difficulties, especially as regards
long term suspended animation by such methods. But with respect to clinical
medicine applications the story may just possibly be different and more
positive. That would also be gratifying.

Mr. Schreier, naturally, would like to get some credit for his ideas if they
pan out, but in any event would like to see them pursued.

How does his approach differ from the old work of Klebanoff and others with
dogs, and the more recent work of BioPreservation with dogs and of BioTime
with hamsters and primates at near-freezing temperatures? Presumably in the
details, including the number and character of the metabolites monitored and
controlled, and the manner of doing it. How much he has to contribute here
remains to be seen.  

Robert Ettinger


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5376