X-Message-Number: 6983 From: Brian Wowk <> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 23:15:58 -0500 Subject: Disclosure Forward from sci.cryonics: In <> Terry Lambert <> writes: >When I say "hard scientist", I refer to methodology, not framed >pieces of vellum. With no previous publications, the only people who know her methodology are the signatories to her non-disclosure agreement. While the result stands regardless, the real issue here is the interpretation of that result: What it means for organ cryopreservation, what it means for cryonics. I do not believe a breakthrough for human heart cryopreservation can be claimed until a slow cooling success is demonstrated. I do not believe a monoagent can be upheld as a breakthrough for cryopreservation of other organs until it is tested on other organs (because there is no "design space" with a monoagent). I do not believe a monoagent can be upheld as a breakthrough for cryonics until it is tested on brains. It's entirely possible that all these issues will be resolved with positive outcome, in which case we have a MAJOR breakthrough. I will then eat my crow, take my lumps, and join the chorus of praise. In the meantime I hope some slow cooling experiments and brain EMs get done. >1) The paper was submitted for publication far in advance > of the announcement. The paper was submitted in December, 1995. Recent media coverage is merely the latest upstirring of coverage that was initiated (internationally) in October, 1995. Attempts to interpret the significance of the work for cryonics since that time (based on limited media information instead of a paper) have been met with flames. >2) The announcement doesn't claim that cryosuspension of > a whole human being and subsequent revival following > a one year period of prolonged suspension has taken > place (the cryonics equivalent of the touted "cold > fusion breakthrough"). Nor did Ponds and Fleishman claim to have built a power station. Since you raised the issue of "standards of disclosure", I assert that media announcements months before a paper is even submitted is NOT the standard of disclosure that scientists should aspire to. It makes objective verification of claims (especially *interpretive* claims) virtually impossible. The difficulties of such disclosures should be especially apparent in the case of new scientists with unknown work. It's possible that by proceeding as she did, the work will see human application sooner than it would have otherwise. On the other hand, by not following conventional standards, and by making extreme claims, she may have harmed herself in ways that will delay this work more than it would have been otherwise. One unfortunate outcome of all this is that other organ cryopreservation labs and other cryonics companies may now also feel pressure from their investors and members to mount media extravaganzas prior to publication to stay competitive. The end result will be that scientists in general will take a dim view of these fields. And that is certainly not the goal we should be working toward. > It claimed far less, in fact, > than the rabbit liver vitrification study has claimed. There have been no media releases about vitrification. There have been no claims that reversible vitrification of every organ in the body can be achieved in two years. > the only > new thing here is that a reexamination of a supposedly > "dead end technique" has yielded interesting results > potentially applicable to cryonics. Agreed. >Seriously, I don't see why there should be any more skepticism >than there would be from parallel development of vitrification >techniques by a heretofore unheard of agency. There is a lot >of gritching over the method, when the effect is well known to >be achievable otherwise. Again, the issue at this point is not the authenticity of the result, but the broader interpretation of that result as currently obtained. *************************************************************************** Brian Wowk CryoCare Foundation 1-800-TOP-CARE President Human Cryopreservation Services http://www.cryocare.org/cryocare/ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=6983