X-Message-Number: 6464
From: 
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 13:45:58 -0400
Subject: Prometheus questions

Everyone admires Paul Wakfer's, and Saul Kent's/Bill Faloon's, energy and
determination in support of cryonics research, and in particular Paul's
success in getting pledges so quickly for more than 10%of his goal ($10
million over ten years). Whether all cryonics organizations should support
Prometheus--or to what degree they should support it--is unfortunately not so
clear, as usual in the real world as opposed to the world of rhetoric. 

First let me say that the Cryonics Institute and the Immortalist Society will
not be able to form a policy on Prometheus before their annual meetings in
September. 

Now a few questions/comments for Paul and for all to consider (and I
apologize if something creeps in here that has already been answered):

1. Since all cryonics organizations already have research projects in
progress or/and in planning, there is an obvious problem in trying to decide
whether, or to what degree, we should substitute fund-raising for Prometheus
for fund-raising for our own projects.  Critical questions arise, both of
psychology and of technical probabilities.

In psychology, a "Rally 'round the flag, boys" approach can be a fine one;
emotional momentum can be important; this suggests it MIGHT be a good idea
for all organizations to throw in together for one major, mighty effort or
Manhattan Project type of thing, albeit private. Certainly such unity would
impress outsiders, and might revive sagging enthusiasm in many older
cryonicists. O.K., but the key word is MIGHT. "Rally 'round the flag, boys"
also suggests "all your eggs in one basket." That isn't necessarily bad, but
it does have its hazards.

As to technical likelihood of success in the Prometheus approach,  Paul is
relying, as far as I know, primarily on Greg Fahy's judgment. Greg is well
qualified to form such a judgment--but on the other hand I believe the sober
fact is that he has been over-optimistic in the past. (Who among us hasn't?)
In 1962 there were "experts" predicting suspended animation within ten years,
given "sufficient" funding.

2. Who is going to select the research approach(es) and allocate the funds?

Again, in light of the repeated references to vitrification, it seems obvious
that Greg or/and people close to him, or of like mind, will be asked to lead
the way. That might be fine. On the other hand, alternative approaches might
be neglected, and one or more of those might turn out to be better or/and
cheaper. This suggests we need to keep some diversity and some independent
research projects.

3. Will plans and results be shared on a timely basis? With whom?

Since there has been talk of "shares," presumably there is a potential profit
motive tied in, suggesting an incentive to keeping proprietary information
confidential at least until patents are obtained. This in turn suggests that
there could be potentially life-saving information withheld from the public
for protracted periods. 

4. Continuing this thread, Brian Wowk is President of CryoCare, and CryoCare
is a leading element in Prometheus. Brian has expressed himself in favor of
deferring any claims about crypreservation techniques until publication in a
peer-reviewed journal. The merits of this position are obvious, but (as
usual) there is a flip side. 

One contrary aspect is the obvious one of delay possibly costing lives.
Another is the more general conceptual question of decisions controlled by
free markets vs. those controlled by guilds. The guild system may have its
merits, but so does the free market system. Publish when and as you please,
offer for sale when and as you please; the customers will make the final
judgments, and will continuously modify them in light of experience. No
 "blue ribbon" committee is likely to do better, and would almost certainly
be slower. 

No doubt further questions/comments will occur to me and others in the weeks
ahead. I'm not trying to be a wet blanket nor to dampen anyone's enthusiasm,
but reality is a tough environment, and we need to see it clearly.

By the way, I don't think Paul mentioned the original Prometheus Project,
Gary Feinberg's proposal and book of that name (Doubleday, 1969). But
probably Gary won't object, since he's dead.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6464