From: Eugen Leitl (eugen@leitl.org)
Date: Fri Sep 20 2002 - 12:10:05 MDT
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Terry W. Colvin wrote:
> This misses the point, but is a good example. IMO there is nothing wrong
> with the concept of cryopreservation, only with the current techniques.
Well, there's the ceiling given by physical laws, too. It's pretty close
as far as I can see.
> Like the early flight attempts, as far as human preservation is concerned,
> we're still running downhill flapping canvas wings with our arms.
Actually, I think we're well past the first transatlantic flight here. Any
improvement can only be incremental.
> DNA cryopreservation is not pseudoscience. We have a lot of evidence that
Who the flying fsck cares about DNA preservation!?
> modern techniques allow us to preserve DNA for a long time, so it's
> scientific to use those techniques to preserve DNA. OTOH we have evidence
> that those techniques destroy brains, so it's unscientific to use them to
> preserve brains.
Right.
> The issue here is not why people want to preserve things. Science is not
> worried about the goals -- whether it's for sentimental reasons, money or
> hoping for future advances, the only important question is "does the
> technique work?". For DNA it does. For brains it doesn't; we need a better one.
What is lacking is simple validation. Fact is: we don't know how well or
how badly we fare at the ultrastructural level. No one has bothered
looking so far.
> Again, close but no cigar. The problem is that current techniques are too
> destructive and there is no evidence that you are really preserving what
> you need. We know that the DNA gets preserved, but we have no idea if
> enough of the brain is.
Why do you mention DNA in this context? That's so red herring.
[rest snipped]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:11 MST