Tissue cryopreservation with inductive heating

Welcome to the Oregon Cryonics forum
jordansparks
Site Admin
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:59 pm

Tissue cryopreservation with inductive heating

Postby jordansparks » Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:39 pm

This paper was published today:
http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/9/379/eaah4586.full
I have been skeptical that it might be possible to develop organ banking technology, and I have been vocal about my skepticism. After reading this paper, I will now admit that organ banking is theoretically possible -- just barely. I still think organ banking will be limited to certain kinds of tissues and will not be a panacea. There are just too many hard unsolved problems. Portable perfusion systems seem to solve the problems better.

If organ banking is theoretically possible, then I must now admit that suspended animation http://www.oregoncryo.com/suspendedAnimation.html is theoretically possible. This kills me, because I detest how suspended animation is always getting confused with cryonics. I state right at the top of our main page that we are not offering suspended animation. I would prefer to continue to refer to suspended animation as fictitious technology, but I won't.

This article
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/organ-cryopreservation-becoming-reality-bringing-whole-bodies-back-still-100-years-away-1609149
mentions that the scientists involved acknowledged that their work might attract interest from the cryonics industry. But the scientists feel that it's not relevant because the hurdles are so huge that we are still looking at over 100 years of work before we could possibly perfect suspended animation. I agree wholeheartedly.

This paper will not change how we approach the preservation phase of cryonics. Will it generate enough interest to make cryonics more popular? No. Mainstream scientists already routinely cryopreserve tissue, and gradually scaling up to slightly larger tissue samples isn't going to change anything. Besides, this has nothing to do with cryonics, and most people correctly understand that intuitively. What most people unfortunately get wrong with intuition is the demonstrated fact that memories can already be preserved with current technology.

gmcintir
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:10 am

Re: Tissue cryopreservation with inductive heating

Postby gmcintir » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:01 am

Jordan,

I am a 66 year old reluctant cryonaut mostly because one seems to have such a very small chance of being revived.I was very encouraged by this paper and decided to revisit cryonics to see what the take of the various cryonics organizations is. So I created an account and found your post here.

I am very discouraged to see your attitude on this work. It seems you find this paper threatening to your prior beliefs. I am at a loss to see how this work could threaten your organization.

I am interested in finding a cryonics organization saying something like "We find this work exciting and intend to investigate the pros and cons of offering an option to add these nanoparticles to our cryoprotectant "

I suspect the author with the 100 year quote is only trying to distance their work from the cryonics organizations as funding sources view cryonics as less reputable science.

Ask yourself... what if they succeed in reviving human sized organs in the next few years? What if they try the same technology on a small mouse and it works? All the current cryonauts will be unrevivable with that technology unless they have magnetic nanoparticles. The paper indicates the nanoparticles are easily flushed out so first indications are that the cons are minimal.

Maybe their are other cons, but you need an open mind and a lot of investigation to properly access this.

I think it would be in your best interests to examine your current position on this. A lot of potential customers are going to be interested in this technology until it is proven 'not' to work. They will be less interested in your stubborn negativism.

jordansparks
Site Admin
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Tissue cryopreservation with inductive heating

Postby jordansparks » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:34 am

Thank you for your thoughtful post. On any given highly specialized topic like this, there are only a handful of scientific experts in the world who deeply understand the topic. They have spent their entire lives learning all the nuances of the topic from all angles. Deep understanding matters. Their opinions matter. Those experts have a general group consensus which must be respected. That's how science works.

My opinion is worthless because I'm not one of those experts on the topic. The mainstream scientific consensus of the experts is that suspended animation would take another 100 years or so to develop, and they specifically warn us against extrapolating this paper to suspended animation applications. So my views on the infeasibility of suspended animation simply follow the mainstream. As for whether they might revive organs, look to their responses for hints. They mention many hurdles. They mention that the application of this is currently very small tissue samples. They use words like "eventually" and "hopefully".

In summary, this paper is not the slightest bit threatening to me. It's just sort of irrelevant. What I do find threatening is the position that suspended animation is imminent. The scientific experts similarly find that idea threatening because there is no evidence for it, and it borders on pseudoscience.

jordansparks
Site Admin
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Tissue cryopreservation with inductive heating

Postby jordansparks » Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:02 pm

There is a fallacy in argument called appeal to authority. It does not apply in this case because the authorities in question are experts on this topic. Now, I'm not aware of anyone having done a poll of the experts to see what their actual opinion of suspended animation is. If some of the experts turn out to have an opinion that suspended animation is only 20 years away, for example, then it would be acceptable to use that lower limit in your argument. I don't know of any, but feel free to let me know if you do. They would need to be recognized expert scientists in cryopreservation.


Return to “Forum”