From: kqb@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (kevin.q.brown)
Subject: Re: New Scientist article, 26 September
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:33:33 GMT
X-Crossposted-To: cryonics mailing list

    ------------------------ Forwarded Message ------------------------

> Date: 02 Oct 92 14:40:41 EDT
> From: Garret Smyth <100030.254@CompuServe.COM>
> Message-Subject: CRYONICS RE: New Scientist article 26th September

On the whole the New Scientist article was not positive, and certainly
did not cover any ground that hasn't been gone over many times before. A
shame for a publication such as New Scientist which prides itself on
up-to-dateness.

There was a positive side to it, though. In the box on page 38 (1: The
skull that grins at the banquet) the text concludes: "Yet most people
would be willing to such inconveniences for the chance of being able to
resume conscious life."

His whole line seems to be that cryonics probably doesn't work, not, as
many writers would have it *shouldn't* work. He makes an attempt to argue
on scientific grounds. This, especially given the serious nature of the
magazine the arguement is in, is a major breakthrough. As far as I know
this is the first time such an organ has addressed cryonics directly.
(I'm
aware that "Nature" has published papers on brain freezing - and
semi-successful thawing - but it was with reference to ischemia and no
mention was made to cryonics.)

It goes like that with new ideas. There are stages of acceptance. 

1) At first people with "main-stream" views refuse to even listen to
ridiculous and outlandish proposals. 

2) They will listen, but pronounce that the proposers of such ideas are
charlatans and/or loonies. 

3) They start to accept that the proponents of such ideas may have a
legitimate arguement in theory, but that in practice it is unfeasable. 

4) They say that it might be technically possible but will never be of
practical value. 

5) Then they say that they knew it would work all along but that the
people who were putting forward the idea were too weird or presented it
badly. Some even try to pretend that it was their idea in the first
place! A few who have a lot of integrity will apologise.

'Twas ever thus. Just look up the history of flight, or even travelling
at over 30mph.

In that the arguement is now a scientific one we must aim to push it
towards the main-stream of debate. We've been on the fringes far too long.
Here is our opening. We *know* we can win the scientific arguement. We can
influence any open minded scientist (ok there are fewer of them about than
there ought to be, but that's no reason not to try), and the best way to
do it is by quoting scientific references. These have the advantage of
being short (editors see a lot of letters, and long ones tend to get
cut), and very hard to argue with.

I suggest that we should consolidate our bridgehead at stage three, and
then go for stage four. 

Inside the UK write to the editor at:

New Scientist
Holborn Publishing Group
King's Reach Tower
Stamford St
London SE1 9LS

or fax him/her on 071 261 6464.

Letters from outside Europe will take rather a long time so I would
recommend sending a fax: +44 71 261 6464. I notice on the "comment" page
that there are editorial offices in Washington DC (fax: 202 331 2082),
Brussels (fax: 2 245 0552) and Port Melbourne (Fax: 03 646 7824). For
speed, however I recommend contacting the London office. Anyone without
access to a fax can e-mail me directly and I will send on the message by
fax (at my expense). Please include a name and address to show that the
faxes are from different people and not just me using different names.
(Don't worry New Scientist doesn't publish addresses.)

A couple of scientific references to be going on with are:

Suda et al, "Viablilty of long term frozen cat brain in vitro"
Nature, October 15, 1966, vol 212, pp 268-270

Suda et al, "Bioelectric discharges of isolated cat brain after revival
from years of storage". Brain Research, 70 (1974) pp527-531

I know there are some relevant references in Cryo-letters and Cryobiology
but I don't have them to hand. Can anyone help?

Garret Smyth

PS on a lighter note, I have wondered how the hoary old chestnut about
changing hamburger back into beef has survived so long. Not only is it
quite easy to do, but it has been done on a large scale for a long time.
Also frankfurters can be turned back into pork, and chicken nuggets back
into chickens. To pile amazement upon amazement, the minced up version of
any of the above can be, and has been for some time, turned into any of
the *other* animals. This is not alchemy, but naturally occurring
nanotechnology. You feed the burger to the cow and its little
nano-machines crank away until the components are rearranged as *living*
cow flesh. Farmers have done it for years. Of course, if the stuff isn't
heat treated properly you get the problem that we have in the UK of large
numbers of cows going raving bonkers. I blame it on the EC's common
agricultural policy and a sloppy farm industry.
Xref: sparky sci.cryonics:575 news.answers:3224