15 Comments

I just gave $1k

Expand full comment

I just added to the post.

Expand full comment

Regarding, "before they investigated the question":

It is unfortunate that the Prize and related discussion are framed in a manner that makes it appear as though cryonicists have been operating in ignorance (turning a blind eye?) toward the effects of cryopreservation for decades until the Brain Preservation Foundation came along.  Cryonicists have been obtaining electron micrographs of their work all along

http://www.alcor.org/Librar... 

http://www.alcor.org/Librar... 

http://www.alcor.org/Librar... 

http://www.alcor.org/AboutC... 

This feedback has been the basis of changing from DMSO to glycerol, high molarity glycerol, and then vitrification.  What is new about the Brain Preservation Foundation is not that they will be obtaining micrographs, but that they will be using a new specimen sectionnig technology (ATLUM) to attempt 3D reconstruction.  So in a sense we do know, from both first principles and data, what the results of this analysis should be (good preservation).  If preservation looks reasonable in 2D slices taken in arbitrary directions, but doesn't look good in a 3D reconstruction using a particular new technology, that suggests methodological issues not preservation defect.  We already know that the preservation is pretty good, in small animal models at least.  We are not operating in a knowledge vacuum.

Brian Wowk, PhDScientist at 21CM

Expand full comment

False choice. Of course I will consider Alcor's arguments on their merit, once they have been presented. At the same time, I won't hesitate to point out that they presented their conclusions before presenting their arguments (which tends to suggest, even if it doesn't necessarily imply, that they knew what their conclusions were going to be before they investigated the question).

Expand full comment

Someone hasn't been paying attention! If you read Robin's initial post, you'll see that while the Prize itself is fully funded, the costs of actually conducting the tests is not.

Expand full comment

Consider this: If plastic embedding (the preferred term) looks as good or better than cryopreservation, there is no reason why Alcor could not offer it. Many of the same organizational and response capabilities would be relevant. But, thanks Eliezer -- it may take a little while to jointly write the detailed piece but it will set forth the reasons why chemopreservation/plastic embedding is unlikely to be as good an option.

Expand full comment

Is it just me or a "fully funded" prize soliciting for donations looks like a big fat scam?

Expand full comment

As a non-science major but interested, maybe put in one sentence just giving the overall...or laymen's terms...whatever??

Expand full comment

I agree that I may not understand the timescales involved well enough. But it sounds like you agree that a/the central issue is how much key protein diffusion and sequence-breaking occurs over the timescale required to produce the embedding. I do look forward to your detailed critique.

Expand full comment

Agreed.  Alcor could be saying that because of rivalry, but also because plastination is doomed and their superior experience makes this obvious to them.  We'll see.

Expand full comment

Robin, I don't want to jump the gun on the longer piece I will (probably co-)write, but how well do you understand the plastic embedding process? You say "But for brains filled with plastic within a few minutes of live blood flow, I just can’t see the problem."  Within a few minutes? How are you going to perfuse with aldehydes, then osmium tetroxide, then ethanol in a few minutes. It's going to take hours. Then more days -- not hours -- to perfuse with resin. 

(That's all assuming you have an organization who monitors people, sends a standby team, and gets the job done -- real world, critical conditions that some pro-chemopreservation commentators are completely ignoring.)I will also be writing at more length about how the Prize handicaps cryopreservation. That may be one reason no one is taking up your bet that "plastination" ("plastic embedding" is the term preferred by others, including the German team, to distinguish the process from the well-publicized artistic work) is more likely to win. The Prize is really set up to test plastic embedding rather than to fairly evaluate cryopreservation. Cryo could lose the prize and still be as good or better. But I'll detail that point in an article.--Max

Expand full comment

 Good - competition!

Expand full comment

 Suggestion: consider Alcor's arguments arguments, once presented, on their actual merit, rather than just speculating on their psychology.

Expand full comment

We will critically examine...look at some reasons to expect...explain why the Prize handicaps the cryopreservation option ...argue why brain preservation technologies should be evaluated by [our preferred] criteria 

Uh-oh. It looks like a rivalry may be developing.

Expand full comment