X-Message-Number: 9572 Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:56:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Platt <> Subject: Scenario for Widespread Adoption of Cryonics Andrew Davidson makes a good point: that the general public does not know the details about factors preventing cryonics from working. He concludes (if I understand him correctly) that if we fix these technical problems, few people will know or care, and thus cryonics will not broaden its appeal. This is contrary to historical experience in other fields of research. Consider some random examples of technological innovation: high-fidelity sound in the 1950s, computers in the 1970s, TV in the 1940s, color TV in the 1960s, birth control pills in the early 1960s, civil aviation in the 1930s, dietary supplements in the 1970s. Initially, all of these concepts seemed mysterious, technically daunting, unnecessary, or "wacky." Only a few extremists were involved during the experimental phase. Then, when a functional prototype was developed, it was endorsed (implicitly or explicitly) by people who understood it thoroughly. This generated publicity that attracted early adopters, who understood the general gist of the technology, but not the details. (In the case of microcomputers, for instance, early adopters in the 1970s knew the difference between RAM and ROM but might not know that a transister works via electron tunneling.) Eventually, technically illiterate people started using the technology because it had become sufficiently legitimized by authority figures and the core group of early adopters. Also, of course, the product became cheaper as it was used more widely. Cryonics attempted to skip this gradual process. Advocates started trying to market the technology when it was not even at prototype stage. In effect, they were selling a product that didn't work, and promising that some completely different group of people would fix it maybe a century in the future. What continues to amaze me is that cryonicists imagine this deal should appeal to a large consumer base, when it runs counter to all known principles of commerce and human behavior. Cryonics received a boost from Drexler, because he was a quasi-legitimate scientific authority figure. But this only proposed a plausible outline of a strategy to fix damage in the future. Here and now, the product still did not work. If you want to sell cryonics to a larger audience, you are going to have to face the fact that this audience will view it with the same skepticism that they greet ANY new technology. (Rule #1: respect the needs of your customers, don't just scoff at them for being stupid.) Moreover, since cryonics violates very fundamental instincts and preconceptions, people will require EVEN MORE assurance than usual, before they will opt for it. Therefore I conclude that the prerequisite for widespread adoption of cryonics is VALIDATION. This does NOT mean endorsements from showbiz personalities or science writers; we've already established that this has a limited effect. William Shatner and Arthur C. Clarke endorsed the concept of cryonics thirty years ago. Result: virtually nil. Many people believe that Walt Disney is frozen. Result: still nil. Charles Platt endorsed cryonics in Omni magazine 8 or 9 years ago. Result: many info requests, but hardly anyone actually signed up when they understood the concept in detail. Validation, initially, must come from scientists--ideally, at least one Nobel prize winner. We can reach this point incrementally (by a series of published papers) or by one dramatic demonstration (as occurred recently with cloning). The latter option involves some risk, since it antagonizes scientists who dislike the idea of doing science via the media, and will prompt backlash from groups that try to debunk the work (as happened when the MIT hot-fusion group staged a very successful media assault on cold fusion). Validation should generate a fair amount of publicity. As a journalist myself, I know that most journalists will check the validity of a claim by calling a couple of trusted sources. If the sources say it's okay, the journalist implicitly endorses the concept (by reporting it fairly instead of doing a hatchet job). The sources in this case will be establishment scientists. These scientists obviously will need to understand technical details about damage to human tissues. But once we achieve that goal, the media takes over and presents a simplified version to the public. At that point I believe we will see a flow of early adopters that will be far greater than the trickle of hardcore nonconformists we have known in the past. The flow of early adopters will encourage others to trust the concept of cryopreservation, and these people may be totally oblivious to cryonics technicalities. They will sign up because a) some easy-to-understand demo indicated that it has a real chance of working, and/or b) a trusted authority figure advised them that it's "okay." Conclusion: Research to perfect cryonics procedures is the absolutely essential prerequisite in either case. Note that my rosy scenario, above, omits another consequence of proven functionality: federal regulation. I fear this the most, since I cannot imagine the FDA in its current form *ever* approving the multifactorial approach that seems necessary to inhibit the toxic cascade which follows cardiac arrest. But, if cryonics is ever going to appeal to a large consumer base, federal regulation is an unavoidable risk. --Charles Platt CryoCare PS. In his recent post Bob Ettinger implies that we have seen optimistic predictions about cryonics research in the past, and those predictions have resulted in disappointment. This is an oversimplification. With very low funding, Darwin and Leaf revolutionized the process of human cryopreservation. This was thoroughly documented in Alcor's _Cryonics_ magazine, as Bob well knows. Subsequently, still with tiny amounts of funding by everyday standards, Darwin and Harris have achieved a huge step forward in understanding and preventing ischemic damage, to the extent that they now hold the unofficial world record for survival of dogs that have endured normothermic ischemia following cardiac arrest. Bob should be well aware of this, also, since one of the dogs was brought to the Alcor Technology Festival earlier this year, where Bob was an attendee. In fact, small amounts of money have produced huge and dramatic achievements, far beyond any reasonable expectations. In the course of my work as a science writer, I visit various laboratories, and I have never seen such a high ratio of results to funding. It's quite exceptional. The only big disappointment that I am aware of, in cryonics research, occurred in the case of Olga Visser. I have already written about this in detail, and there's no need to go into it again here. Bob lives an easy 8-hour drive from the lab at 21st Century Medicine. I am baffled that he would disparage the work that has been done there without seeing for himself. I believe he would be extremely welcome, if he chose to do so. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=9572