Molecular Repair
of the Brain
by Ralph C. Merkle, Ph.D.
|
 |
This article was published in two parts in Cryonics magazine, January
and April 1994. A more highly annotated version can be found on Ralph
Merkle's Cryonics Pages.
See also cryobiologist Dr. Gregory Fahy's critique
of this paper and Dr. Merkle's
response. For an alternative repair scenario contributed by an anonymous biologist that circumvents Dr. Fahy's concerns, see "Realistic Scenario for Nanotechnological Repair of the Frozen Human Brain".
A short version of this paper entitled "The Technical Feasibility of Cryonics,"
appeared in Medical Hypotheses Vol. 39, 1992; 6-16.
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
Cryonic suspension is a method of stabilizing the condition of someone who
is terminally ill so that they can be transported to the medical care facilities
that will be available in the late 21st or 22nd century. There is little dispute
that the condition of a person stored at the temperature of liquid nitrogen
is stable, but the process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot
be reversed by current medical technology. Whether or not the damage inflicted
by current methods can ever be reversed depends both on the level of damage
and the ultimate limits of future medical technology. The failure to reverse
freezing injury with current methods does not imply that it can never be reversed
in the future, just as the inability to build a personal computer in 1890 did
not imply that such machines would never be economically built. This paper considers
the limits of what medical technology should eventually be able to achieve (based
on the currently understood laws of chemistry and physics) and the kinds of
damage caused by current methods of freezing. It then considers whether methods
of repairing the kinds of damage caused by current suspension techniques are
likely to be achieved in the future.
INTRODUCTION
Tissue preserved in liquid nitrogen can survive centuries without deterioration
[note 1]. This simple fact provides an imperfect
time machine that can transport us almost unchanged from the present to the future:
we need merely freeze ourselves in liquid nitrogen. If freezing damage can someday
be cured, then a form of time travel to the era when the cure is available would
be possible. While unappealing to the healthy this possibility is more attractive
to the terminally ill, whose options are somewhat limited. Far from being idle
speculation, this option is available to anyone who so chooses. First seriously
proposed in the 1960's by Ettinger[80] there are now three organizations in the
U.S. that provide cryonic suspension services.
Perhaps the most important question in evaluating this option is its
technical feasibility: will it work?
Given the remarkable progress of science during the past few centuries it is
difficult to dismiss cryonics out of hand. The structure of DNA was unknown
prior to 1953; the chemical (rather than "vitalistic") nature of living beings
was not appreciated until early in the 20th century; it was not until 1864 that
spontaneous generation was put to rest by Louis Pasteur, who demonstrated that
no organisms emerged from heat-sterilized growth medium kept in sealed flasks;
and Sir Isaac Newton's Principia established the laws of motion in 1687, just
over 300 years ago. If progress of the same magnitude occurs in the next few
centuries, then it becomes difficult to argue that the repair of frozen tissue
is inherently and forever infeasible.
Hesitation to dismiss cryonics is not a ringing endorsement and still leaves
the basic question in considerable doubt. Perhaps a closer consideration of how
future technologies might be applied to the repair of frozen tissue will let us
draw stronger conclusions -- in one direction or the other. Ultimately, cryonics
will either (a) work or (b) fail to work. It would seem useful to know in
advance which of these two outcomes to expect. If it can be ruled out as
infeasible, then we need not waste further time on it. If it seems likely that
it will be technically feasible, then a number of nontechnical issues should be
addressed in order to obtain a good probability of overall success.
The reader interested in a general introduction to cryonics is referred to
other sources[23, 24, 80]. Here, we focus on technical feasibility.
While many isolated tissues (and a few particularly hardy organs) have been
successfully cooled to the temperature of liquid nitrogen and rewarmed[59],
further successes have proven elusive. While there is no particular reason to
believe that a cure for freezing damage would violate any laws of physics (or
is otherwise obviously infeasible), it is likely that the damage done by freezing
is beyond the self-repair and recovery capabilities of the tissue itself. This
does not imply that the damage cannot be repaired, only that significant
elements of the repair process would have to be provided from an external source.
In deciding whether such externally provided repair will (or will not) eventually
prove feasible, we must keep in mind that such repair techniques can quite literally
take advantage of scientific advances made during the next few centuries. Forecasting
the capabilities of future technologies is therefore an integral component of
determining the feasibility of cryonics. Such a forecast should, in principle,
be feasible. The laws of physics and chemistry as they apply to biological structures
are well understood and well defined. Whether the repair of frozen tissue will
(or will not) eventually prove feasible within the framework defined by those
laws is a question which we should be able to answer based on what is known
today.
Current research (outlined below) supports the idea that we will eventually
be able to examine and manipulate structures molecule by molecule and even atom
by atom. Such a technical capability has very clear implications for the kinds
of damage that can (and cannot) be repaired. The most powerful repair capabilities
that should eventually be possible can be defined with remarkable clarity. The
question we wish to answer is conceptually straightforward: will the most powerful
repair capability that is likely to be developed in the long run (perhaps over
a few centuries) be adequate to repair tissue that is frozen using the best
available current methods?[note 2] Eigler and Schweizer[49] have already developed
the capability "... to fabricate rudimentary structures of our own design, atom
by atom." Eigler said[129], "...by the time I'm ready to kick the bucket, we
might be able to store enough information on my exact physical makeup that someday
we'll be able to reassemble me, atom by atom."
The general purpose ability to manipulate structures with atomic precision
and low cost is often called nanotechnology (also called molecular engineering,
molecular manufacturing, molecular nanotechnology , etc.). There is widespread
belief that such a capability will eventually be developed [1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8,
10, 19, 41, 47, 49, 83, 84, 85, 106, 107, 108, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122]
though exactly how long it will take is unclear. The long storage times possible
with cryonic suspension make the precise development time of such technologies
noncritical. Development any time during the next few centuries would be sufficient
to save the lives of those suspended with current technology.
In this paper, we give a brief introduction to nanotechnology and then clarify
the technical issues involved in applying it in the conceptually simplest and
most powerful fashion to the repair of frozen tissue.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Broadly speaking, the central thesis of nanotechnology is that almost any structure
consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics that can be specified can in
fact be built. This possibility was first advanced by Richard Feynman in 1959
[4] when he said: "The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak
against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom." (Feynman won the
1965 Nobel prize in physics).
This concept is receiving increasing attention in the research community. There
have been two international research conferences directly on molecular manufacturing
[83, 84, 116, 121] as well as a broad range of conferences on related subjects.
Science [47, page 26] said "The ability to design and manufacture devices
that are only tens or hundreds of atoms across promises rich rewards in electronics,
catalysis, and materials. The scientific rewards should be just as great, as
researchers approach an ultimate level of control -- assembling matter one atom
at a time." "Within the decade, [John] Foster [at IBM Almaden] or some other
scientist is likely to learn how to piece together atoms and molecules one at
a time using the STM [Scanning Tunneling Microscope]."
Eigler and Schweizer[49] at IBM reported on "...the use of the STM at low
temperatures (4 K) to position individual xenon atoms on a single-crystal nickel
surface with atomic precision. This capacity has allowed us to fabricate
rudimentary structures of our own design, atom by atom. The processes we
describe are in principle applicable to molecules also. In view of the
device-like characteristics reported for single atoms on surfaces [omitted
references], the possibilities for perhaps the ultimate in device
miniaturization are evident."
J. A. Armstrong, IBM Chief Scientist and Vice President for Science and
Technology[106] said "I believe that nanoscience and nanotechnology will be
central to the next epoch of the information age, and will be as revolutionary
as science and technology at the micron scale have been since the early
'70's.... Indeed, we will have the ability to make electronic and mechanical
devices atom-by-atom when that is appropriate to the job at hand."
The New York Times said[107]: "Scientists are beginning to gain the
ability to manipulate matter by its most basic components --- molecule by molecule
and even atom by atom." "That ability, while now very crude, might one day allow
people to build almost unimaginably small electronic circuits and machines,
producing, for example, a super computer invisible to the naked eye. Some futurists
even imagine building tiny robots that could travel through the body performing
surgery on damaged cells."
Drexler[1,10,19,41, 85] has proposed the assembler, a small device resembling
an industrial robot which would be capable of holding and positioning reactive
compounds in order to control the precise location at which chemical reactions
take place. This general approach should allow the construction of large atomically
precise objects by a sequence of precisely controlled chemical reactions.
The best technical discussion of nanotechnology has recently been provided
by Drexler[ 85].
RibosomesThe plausibility of this approach can be illustrated by the
ribosome. Ribosomes manufacture all the proteins used in all living things on
this planet. A typical ribosome is relatively small (a few thousand cubic
nanometers) and is capable of building almost any protein by stringing together
amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) in a precise linear sequence. To
do this, the ribosome has a means of grasping a specific amino acid (more
precisely, it has a means of selectively grasping a specific transfer RNA, which
in turn is chemically bonded by a specific enzyme to a specific amino acid), of
grasping the growing polypeptide, and of causing the specific amino acid to
react with and be added to the end of the polypeptide[14].
The instructions that the ribosome follows in building a protein are provided
by mRNA (messenger RNA). This is a polymer formed from the 4 bases adenine,
cytosine, guanine, and uracil. A sequence of several hundred to a few thousand
such bases codes for a specific protein. The ribosome "reads" this "control
tape" sequentially, and acts on the directions it provides.
AssemblersIn an analogous fashion, an assembler will build an arbitrary
molecular structure following a sequence of instructions. The assembler,
however, will provide three-dimensional positional and full orientational
control over the molecular component (analogous to the individual amino acid)
being added to a growing complex molecular structure (analogous to the growing
polypeptide). In addition, the assembler will be able to form any one of several
different kinds of chemical bonds, not just the single kind (the peptide bond)
that the ribosome makes.
Calculations indicate that an assembler need not inherently be very large.
Enzymes "typically" weigh about 10^5 amu (atomic mass units [note 3]), while the ribosome itself is about 3
x 10^6 amu[14]. The smallest assembler might be a factor of ten or
so larger than a ribosome. Current design ideas for an assembler are somewhat
larger than this: cylindrical "arms" about 100 nanometers in length and 30 nanometers
in diameter, rotary joints to allow arbitrary positioning of the tip of the
arm, and a worst-case positional accuracy at the tip of perhaps 0.1 to 0.2 nanometers,
even in the presence of thermal noise[ 85]. Even a solid block of diamond as
large as such an arm weighs only sixteen million amu, so we can safely conclude
that a hollow arm of such dimensions would weigh less. Six such arms would weigh
less than 10^8 amu.
Molecular Computers
The assembler requires a detailed sequence of control signals, just as the ribosome
requires mRNA to control its actions. Such detailed control signals can be provided
by a computer. A feasible design for a molecular computer has been presented by
Drexler[2, 19, 85]. This design is mechanical in nature, and is based on sliding
rods that interact by blocking or unblocking each other at "locks." [note 4] This design has a size of about 5 cubic
nanometers per "lock" (roughly equivalent to a single logic gate). Quadrupling
this size to 20 cubic nanometers (to allow for power, interfaces, and the like)
and assuming that we require a minimum of 10^4 "locks" to provide minimal
control results in a volume of 2 x 10^5 cubic nanometers (.0002 cubic
microns) for the computational element. This many gates is sufficient to build
a simple 4-bit or 8-bit general purpose computer. For example, the 6502 8-bit
microprocessor can be implemented in about 10,000 gates, while an individual 1-bit
processor in the Connection Machine has about 3,000 gates. Assuming that each
cubic nanometer is occupied by roughly 100 atoms of carbon, this 2 x 10^5
cubic nanometer computer will have a mass of about 2 x 10^8 amu.
An assembler might have a kilobyte of high speed (rod-logic based) RAM,
(similar to the amount of RAM used in a modern one-chip computer) and 100
kilobytes of slower but more dense "tape" storage -- this tape storage would
have a mass of 10^8 amu or less (roughly 10 atoms per bit -- see
below). Some additional mass will be used for communications (sending and
receiving signals from other computers) and power. In addition, there will
probably be a "toolkit" of interchangeable tips that can be placed at the ends
of the assembler's arms. When everything is added up a small assembler, with
arms, computer, "toolkit," etc. should weigh less than 10^9 amu.
E. coli (a common bacterium) weighs about 10^12 amu[14, page 123].
Thus, an assembler should be much larger than a ribosome, but much smaller than
a bacterium.
Self Replicating Systems
It is also interesting to compare Drexler's architecture for an assembler with
the von Neumann architecture for a self replicating device. Von Neumann's "universal
constructing automaton"[45] had both a universal Turing machine to control its
functions and a "constructing arm" to build the "secondary automaton." The constructing
arm can be positioned in a two-dimensional plane, and the "head" at the end of
the constructing arm is used to build the desired structure. While von Neumann's
construction was theoretical (existing in a two dimensional cellular automata
world), it still embodied many of the critical elements that now appear in the
assembler.
Further work on self-replicating systems was done by NASA in 1980 in a report
that considered the feasibility of implementing a self-replicating lunar manufacturing
facility with conventional technology[48]. One of their conclusions was that
"The theoretical concept of machine duplication is well developed. There are
several alternative strategies by which machine self-replication can be carried
out in a practical engineering setting." They estimated it would require 20
years (and many billions of dollars) to develop such a system. While they were
considering the design of a macroscopic self-replicating system (the proposed
"seed" was 100 tons) many of the concepts and problems involved in such systems
are similar regardless of size.
Positional Chemistry
Chemists have been remarkably successful at synthesizing a
wide range of compounds with atomic precision. Their successes, however, are
usually small in size (with the notable exception of various polymers). Thus, we
know that a wide range of atomically precise structures with perhaps a few
hundreds of atoms in them are quite feasible. Larger atomically precise
structures with complex three-dimensional shapes can be viewed as a connected
sequence of small atomically precise structures. While chemists have the ability
to precisely sculpt small collections of atoms there is currently no ability to
extend this capability in a general way to structures of larger size. An obvious
structure of considerable scientific and economic interest is the computer. The
ability to manufacture a computer from atomically precise logic elements of
molecular size, and to position those logic elements into a three-dimensional
volume with a highly precise and intricate interconnection pattern would have
revolutionary consequences for the computer industry.
A large atomically precise structure, however, can be viewed as simply a collection
of small atomically precise objects which are then linked together. To build
a truly broad range of large atomically precise objects requires the ability
to create highly specific positionally controlled bonds. A variety of highly
flexible synthetic techniques have been considered by Drexler [ 85]. We shall
describe two such methods here to give the reader a feeling for the kind of
methods that will eventually be feasible.
We assume that positional control is available and that all reactions take
place in a hard vacuum. The use of a hard vacuum allows highly reactive
intermediate structures to be used, e.g., a variety of radicals with one or more
dangling bonds. Because the intermediates are in a vacuum, and because their
position is controlled (as opposed to solutions, where the position and
orientation of a molecule are largely random), such radicals will not react with
the wrong thing for the very simple reason that they will not come into contact
with the wrong thing.
It is difficult to maintain biological structures in a hard vacuum at room
temperature because of water vapor and the vapor of other small compounds. By
sufficiently lowering the temperature, however, it is possible to reduce the
vapor pressure to effectively 0.
Normal solution-based chemistry offers a smaller range of controlled
synthetic possibilities. For example, highly reactive compounds in solution will
promptly react with the solution. In addition, because positional control is not
provided, compounds randomly collide with other compounds. Any reactive compound
will collide randomly and react randomly with anything available (including
itself). Solution-based chemistry requires extremely careful selection of
compounds that are reactive enough to participate in the desired reaction, but
sufficiently non-reactive that they do not accidentally participate in undesired
side reactions. Synthesis under these conditions is somewhat like placing the
parts of a radio into a box, shaking, and pulling out an assembled radio. The
ability of chemists to synthesize what they want under these conditions is
amazing.
Much of current solution-based chemical synthesis is devoted to preventing
unwanted reactions. With assembler-based synthesis, such prevention is a virtually
free by-product of positional control.
To illustrate positional synthesis in vacuum somewhat more concretely, let us
suppose we wish to bond two compounds, A and B. As a first step, we could
utilize positional control to selectively abstract a specific hydrogen atom from
compound A. To do this, we would employ a radical that had two spatially
distinct regions: one region would have a high affinity for hydrogen while the
other region could be built into a larger "tip" structure that would be subject
to positional control. A simple example would be the 1-propynyl radical, which
consists of three co-linear carbon atoms and three hydrogen atoms bonded to the
sp3 carbon at the "base" end. The radical carbon at the radical end is triply
bonded to the middle carbon, which in turn is singly bonded to the base carbon.
In a real abstraction tool, the base carbon would be bonded to other carbon
atoms in a larger diamondoid structure which would provide positional control,
and the tip might be further stabilized by a surrounding "collar" of unreactive
atoms attached near the base that would limit lateral motions of the reactive
tip.
The affinity of this structure for hydrogen is quite high. Propyne (the same
structure but with a hydrogen atom bonded to the "radical" carbon) has a
hydrogen-carbon bond dissociation energy in the vicinity of 132 kilocalories per
mole. As a consequence, a hydrogen atom will prefer being bonded to the
1-propynyl hydrogen abstraction tool in preference to being bonded to almost any
other structure. By positioning the hydrogen abstraction tool over a specific
hydrogen atom on compound A, we can perform a site specific hydrogen abstraction
reaction. This requires positional accuracy of roughly a bond length (to prevent
abstraction of an adjacent hydrogen). Quantum chemical analysis of this reaction
by Musgrave et. al.[108] show that the activation energy for this reaction is
low, and that for the abstraction of hydrogen from the hydrogenated diamond
(111) surface (modeled by isobutane) the barrier is very likely zero.
Having once abstracted a specific hydrogen atom from compound A, we can
repeat the process for compound B. We can now join compound A to compound B by
positioning the two compounds so that the two dangling bonds are adjacent to
each other, and allowing them to bond.
This illustrates a reaction using a single radical. With positional control,
we could also use two radicals simultaneously to achieve a specific objective.
Suppose, for example, that two atoms A1 and A2 which are part of some larger
molecule are bonded to each other. If we were to position the two radicals X1
and X2 adjacent to A1 and A2, respectively, then a bonding structure of much
lower free energy would be one in which the A1-A2 bond was broken, and two new
bonds A1-X1 and A2-X2 were formed. Because this reaction involves breaking one
bond and making two bonds (i.e., the reaction product is not a radical and is
chemically stable) the exact nature of the radicals is not critical. Breaking
one bond to form two bonds is a favored reaction for a wide range of cases.
Thus, the positional control of two radicals can be used to break any of a wide
range of bonds.
A range of other reactions involving a variety of reactive intermediate compounds
(carbenes are among the more interesting ones) are proposed in [85], along with
the results of semi-empirical and ab initio quantum calculations and the available
experimental evidence.
Another general principle that can be employed with positional synthesis is
the controlled use of force. Activation energy, normally provided by thermal
energy in conventional chemistry, can also be provided by mechanical means.
Pressures of 1.7 megabars have been achieved experimentally in macroscopic
systems[30]. At the molecular level such pressure corresponds to forces that are
a large fraction of the force required to break a chemical bond. A molecular
vise made of hard diamond-like material with a cavity designed with the same
precision as the reactive site of an enzyme can provide activation energy by the
extremely precise application of force, thus causing a highly specific reaction
between two compounds.
To achieve the low activation energy needed in reactions involving radicals
requires little force, allowing a wider range of reactions to be caused by simpler
devices (e.g., devices that are able to generate only small force). Further
analysis is provided in [85].
Feynman said: "The problems of chemistry and biology can be greatly helped if
our ability to see what we are doing, and to do things on an atomic level, is
ultimately developed -- a development which I think cannot be avoided." Drexler
has provided the substantive analysis required before this objective can be
turned into a reality. We are nearing an era when we will be able to build
virtually any structure that is specified in atomic detail and which is
consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics. This has substantial
implications for future medical technologies and capabilities.
Repair Devices
A repair device is an assembler which is specialized for repair
of tissue in general, and frozen tissue in particular. We assume that a repair
device has a mass of between 10^9 and 10^10 amu (e.g., we
assume that a repair device might be as much as a factor of 10 more complicated
than a simple assembler). This provides ample margin for increasing the
capabilities of the repair device if this should prove necessary.
A single repair device of the kind described will not, by itself, have
sufficient memory to store the programs required to perform all the repairs.
However, if it is connected to a network (in the same way that current computers
can be connected into a local area network) then a single large "file server"
can provide the needed information for all the repair devices on the network.
The file server can be dedicated to storing information: all the software and
data that the repair devices will need. Almost the entire mass of the file
server can be dedicated to storage, it can service many repair devices, and can
be many times the size of one device without greatly increasing system size.
Combining these advantages implies the file server will have ample storage to
hold whatever programs might be required during the course of repair. In a
similar fashion, if further computational resources are required they can be
provided by "large" compute servers located on the network.
Cost
One consequence of the existence of assemblers is that they are cheap. Because
an assembler can be programmed to build almost any structure, it can in particular
be programmed to build another assembler. Thus, self reproducing assemblers
should be feasible and in consequence the manufacturing costs of assemblers
would be primarily the cost of the raw materials and energy required in their
construction. Eventually (after amortization of possibly quite high development
costs), the price of assemblers (and of the objects they build) should be no
higher than the price of other complex structures made by self-replicating systems.
Potatoes -- which have a staggering design complexity involving tens of thousands
of different genes and different proteins directed by many megabits of genetic
information -- cost well under a dollar per pound.
DESCRIBING THE BRAIN AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL
In principle we need only repair the frozen brain, for the brain is the most critical
and important structure in the body. Faithfully repairing the liver (or any other
secondary tissue) molecule by molecule (or perhaps atom by atom) appears to offer
no benefit over simpler techniques -- such as replacement. The calculations and
discussions that follow are therefore based on the size and composition of the
brain. It should be clear that if repair of the brain is feasible, then the methods
employed could (if we wished) be extended in the obvious way to the rest of the
body.
The brain, like all the familiar matter in the world around us, is made of
atoms. It is the spatial arrangement of these atoms that distinguishes an arm
from a leg, the head from the heart, and sickness from health. This view of the
brain is the framework for our problem, and it is within this framework that we
must work. Our problem, broadly stated, is that the atoms in a frozen brain are
in the wrong places. We must put them back where they belong (with perhaps some
minor additions and removals, as well as just rearrangements) if we expect to
restore the natural functions of this most wonderful organ.
In principle, the most that we could usefully know about the frozen brain would
be the coordinates of each and every atom in it (though confer note 5 ). This knowledge would put us in the best
possible position to determine where each and every atom should go. This knowledge,
combined with a technology that allowed us to rearrange atomic structure in
virtually any fashion consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, would
clearly let us restore the frozen structure to a fully functional and healthy
state.
In short, we must answer three questions:
- Where are the atoms?
- Where should they go?
- How do we move them from where they are to where they should be?
Regardless of the specific technical details involved, any method of
restoring a person in suspension must answer these three questions, if only
implicitly. Current efforts to freeze and then thaw tissue (e.g., experimental
work aimed at freezing and then reviving sperm, kidneys, etc.) answer these
three questions indirectly and implicitly. Ultimately, technical advances should
allow us to answer these questions in a direct and explicit fashion.
Rather than directly consider these questions at once, we shall first
consider a simpler problem: how would we go about describing the position of
every atom if somehow this information was known to us? The answer to this
question will let us better understand the harder questions.
Other work which considers the information required to describe a human being
exists[127, 128].
How Many Bits to Describe One Atom
Each atom has a location in three-space that we can represent with three coordinates:
X, Y, and Z. Atoms are usually a few tenths of a nanometer apart. If we could
record the position of each atom to within 0.01 nanometers, we would know its
position accurately enough to know what chemicals it was a part of, what bonds
it had formed, and so on. The brain is roughly .1 meters across, so .01 nanometers
is about 1 part in 10^10. That is, we would have to know the position
of the atom in each coordinate to within one part in ten billion. A number of
this size can be represented with about 33 bits. There are three coordinates,
X, Y, and Z, each of which requires 33 bits to represent, so the position of an
atom can be represented in 99 bits. An additional few bits are needed to store
the type of the atom (whether hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc.), bringing the total
to slightly over 100 bits [note 5].
Thus, if we could store 100 bits of information for every atom in the brain,
we could fully describe its structure in as exacting and precise a manner as we
could possibly need. (Dancoff and Quastler[128], using a somewhat better
encoding scheme, say that 24.5 bits per atoms should suffice). A memory device
of this capacity should be quite literally possible. To quote Feynman[4]:
"Suppose, to be conservative, that a bit of information is going to require a
little cube of atoms 5 x 5 x 5 -- that is 125 atoms." This is indeed
conservative. Single stranded DNA already stores a single bit in about 16 atoms
(excluding the water that it's in). It seems likely we can reduce this to only a
few atoms[1]. The work at IBM[49] suggests a rather obvious way in which the
presence or absence of a single atom could be used to encode a single bit of
information (although some sort of structure for the atom to rest upon and some
method of sensing the presence or absence of the atom will still be required, so
we would actually need more than one atom per bit in this case). If we
conservatively assume that the laws of chemistry inherently require 10 atoms to
store a single bit of information, we still find that the 100 bits required to
describe a single atom in the brain can be represented by about 1,000 atoms. Put
another way, the location of every atom in a frozen structure is (in a sense)
already encoded in that structure in an analog format. If we convert from this
analog encoding to a digital encoding, we will increase the space required to
store the same amount of information. That is, an atom in three-space encodes
its own position in the analog value of its three spatial coordinates. If we
convert this spatial information from its analog format to a digital format, we
inflate the number of atoms we need by perhaps as much as 1,000. If we digitally
encoded the location of every atom in the brain, we would need 1,000 times as
many atoms to hold this encoded data as there are atoms in the brain. This means
we would require roughly 1,000 times the volume. The brain is somewhat over one
cubic decimeter, so it would require somewhat over one cubic meter of material
to encode the location of each and every atom in the brain in a digital format
suitable for examination and modification by a computer.
While this much memory is remarkable by today's standards, its construction
clearly does not violate any laws of physics or chemistry. That is, it should
literally be possible to store a digital description of each and every atom in
the brain in a memory device that we will eventually be able to build.
How Many Bits to Describe a MoleculeWhile such a feat is remarkable, it
is also much more than we need. Chemists usually think of atoms in groups --
called molecules. For example, water is a molecule made of three atoms: an
oxygen and two hydrogens. If we describe each atom separately, we will require
100 bits per atom, or 300 bits total. If, however, we give the position of the
oxygen atom and give the orientation of the molecule, we need: 99 bits for the
location of the oxygen atom + 20 bits to describe the type of molecule ("water",
in this case) and perhaps another 30 bits to give the orientation of the water
molecule (10 bits for each of the three rotational axes). This means we can
store the description of a water molecule in only 150 bits, instead of the 300
bits required to describe the three atoms separately. (The 20 bits used to
describe the type of the molecule can describe up to 1,000,000 different
molecules -- many more than are present in the brain).
As the molecule we are describing gets larger and larger, the savings in storage
gets bigger and bigger. A whole protein molecule will still require only 150
bits to describe, even though it is made of thousands of atoms. The canonical
position of every atom in the molecule is specified once the type of the molecule
(which occupies a mere 20 bits) is given. A large molecule might adopt many
configurations, so it might at first seem that we'd require many more bits to
describe it. However, biological macromolecules typically assume one favored
configuration rather than a random configuration, and it is this favored configuration
that we will describe [note 6].
We can do even better: the molecules in the brain are packed in next to each
other. Having once described the position of one, we can describe the position
of the next molecule as being such-and-such a distance from the first. If we
assume that two adjacent molecules are within 10 nanometers of each other (a
reasonable assumption) then we need only store 10 bits of "delta X," 10 bits of
"delta Y," and 10 bits of "delta Z" rather than 33 bits of X, 33 bits of Y, and
33 bits of Z. This means our molecule can be described in only 10+10+10+20+30 or
80 bits.
We can compress this further by using various other clever stratagems (50
bits or less is quite achievable), but the essential point should be clear. We
are interested in molecules, and describing a molecule takes fewer bits than
describing an atom.
Do We Really Need to Describe Each Molecule?A further point will be
obvious to any biologist. Describing the exact position and orientation of a
hemoglobin molecule within a red blood cell is completely unnecessary. Each
hemoglobin molecule bounces around within the red blood cell in a random
fashion, and it really doesn't matter exactly where it is, nor exactly which way
it's pointing. All we need do is say, "It's in that red blood cell!" So, too,
for any other molecule that is floating at random in a "cellular compartment:"
we need only say which compartment it's in. Many other molecules, even though
they do not diffuse freely within a cellular compartment, are still able to
diffuse fairly freely over a significant range. The description of their
position can be appropriately compressed.
While this reduces our storage requirements quite a bit, we could go much
further. Instead of describing molecules, we could describe entire sub-cellular
organelles. It seems excessive to describe a mitochondrion by describing each
and every molecule in it. It would be sufficient simply to note the location and
perhaps the size of the mitochondrion, for all mitochondria perform the same
function: they produce energy for the cell. While there are indeed minor
differences from mitochondrion to mitochondrion, these differences don't matter
much and could reasonably be neglected.
We could go still further, and describe an entire cell with only a general
description of the function it performs: this nerve cell has synapses of a
certain type with that other cell, it has a certain shape, and so on. We might
even describe groups of cells in terms of their function: this group of cells in
the retina performs a "center surround" computation, while that group of cells
performs edge enhancement. Cherniak[115] said: "On the usual assumption that the
synapse is the necessary substrate of memory, supposing very roughly that (given
anatomical and physiological "noise") each synapse encodes about one binary bit
of information, and a thousand synapses per neuron are available for this task:
10^10 cortical neurons x 10^3 synapses = 10^13
bits of arbitrary information (1.25 terabytes) that could be stored in the
cerebral cortex."
How Many Bits Do We Really Need?
This kind of logic can be continued, but where does it stop? What is the most
compact description which captures all the essential information? While many
minor details of neural structure are irrelevant, our memories clearly matter.
Any method of describing the human brain which resulted in loss of long term
memory has rather clearly gone too far. When we examine this quantitatively,
we find that preserving the information in our long term memory might require
as little as 10^9 bits (somewhat over 100 megabytes)[37]. We can
say rather confidently that it will take at least this much information to adequately
describe an individual brain. The gap between this lower bound and the molecule-by-molecule
upper bound is rather large, and it is not immediately obvious where in this
range the true answer falls. We shall not attempt to answer this question, but
will instead (conservatively) simply adopt the upper bound.
CRITERIA OF DEATH
death \'deth\ n [ME deeth, fr. OE
death; akin to ON dauthi death, deyja to die --
more at DIE] 1: a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end
of life
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
Determining when "a permanent cessation of all vital functions" has occurred is
not easy. Historically, premature declarations of death and subsequent burial
alive have been a major problem. In the seventh century, Celsus wrote "... Democritus,
a man of well merited celebrity, has asserted that there are in reality, no characteristics
of death sufficiently certain for physicians to rely upon."[87, page 166].
Montgomery, reporting on the evacuation of the Fort Randall Cemetery, states
that nearly two percent of those exhumed were buried alive[87].
Many people in the nineteenth century, alarmed by the prevalence
of premature burial, requested, as part of the last offices, that wounds or
mutilations be made to assure that they would not awaken ... embalming
received a considerable impetus from the fear of premature burial.
New CriteriaCurrent criteria of "death" are sufficient to insure that
spontaneous recovery in the mortuary or later is a rare occurrence. When
examined closely, however, such criteria are simply a codified summary of
symptoms that have proven resistant to treatment by available techniques.
Historically, they derive from the fear that the patient will spontaneously
recover in the morgue or crypt. There is no underlying theoretical structure to
support them, only a continued accumulation of ad hoc procedures supported by
empirical evidence. To quote Robert Veach[15]: "We are left with rather
unsatisfying results. Most of the data do not quite show that persons meeting a
given set of criteria have, in fact, irreversibly lost brain function. They show
that patients lose heart function soon, or that they do not "recover." Autopsy
data are probably the most convincing. Even more convincing, though, is that
over the years not one patient who has met the various criteria and then been
maintained, for whatever reason, has been documented as having recovered brain
function. Although this is not an elegant argument, it is a reassuring." In
short, current criteria are adequate to determine when current medical
technology will fail to revive the patient, but are silent on the capabilities
of future medical technology.
Each new medical advance forces a reexamination and possible change of the
existing ad hoc criteria. The criteria used by the clinician today to determine
"death" are dramatically different from the criteria used 100 years ago, and
have changed more subtly but no less surely in the last decade [note 7]. It seems almost inevitable that the criteria
used 100 years from now will differ dramatically from the criteria commonly
employed today.
These ever shifting criteria for "death" raise an obvious question: is there
a definition which will not change with advances in technology? A definition
which does have a theoretical underpinning and is not dependent
on the technology of the day?
The answer arises from the confluence and synthesis of many lines of work,
ranging from information theory, neuroscience, physics, biochemistry and
computer science to the philosophy of the mind and the evolving criteria
historically used to define death.
When someone has suffered a loss of memory or mental function, we often say
they "aren't themselves." As the loss becomes more serious and all higher mental
functions are lost, we begin to use terms like "persistent vegetative state."
While we will often refrain from declaring such an individual "dead," this
hesitation does not usually arise because we view their present state as "alive"
but because there is still hope of recovery to a healthy state with memory and
personality intact. From a physical point of view we believe there is a chance
that their memories and personalities are still present within the physical
structure of the brain, even though their behavior does not provide direct
evidence for this. If we could reliably determine that the physical structures
encoding memory and personality had in fact been destroyed, then we would
abandon hope and declare the person dead.
The Information Theoretic Criterion of DeathClearly, if we knew the
coordinates of each and every atom in a person's brain then we would (at least
in principle) be in a position to determine with absolute finality whether their
memories and personality had been destroyed in the information theoretic sense,
or whether their memories and personality were preserved but could not, for some
reason, be expressed. If such final destruction had taken place, then there
would be little reason for hope. If such destruction had not taken place, then
it would in principle be possible for a sufficiently advanced technology to
restore the person to a fully functional and healthy state with their memories
and personality intact.
Considerations like this lead to the information theoretic criterion of
death [note 8]. A person is dead according
to the information theoretic criterion if their memories, personality, hopes,
dreams, etc. have been destroyed in the information theoretic sense. That is,
if the structures in the brain that encode memory and personality have been
so disrupted that it is no longer possible in principle to restore them to an
appropriate functional state then the person is dead. If the structures that
encode memory and personality are sufficiently intact that inference of the
memory and personality are feasible in principle, and therefore restoration
to an appropriate functional state is likewise feasible in principle, then the
person is not dead.
A simple example from computer technology is in order. If a computer is fully
functional then its memory and "personality" are completely intact. If it fell
out the seventh floor window to the concrete below, it would rapidly cease to
function. However, its memory and "personality" would still be present in the
pattern of magnetizations on the disk. With sufficient effort, we could completely
repair the computer with its memory and "personality" intact [note 9].
In a similar fashion, as long as the structures that encode the memory and
personality of a human being have not been irretrievably "erased" (to use
computer jargon) then restoration to a fully functional state with memory and
personality intact is in principle feasible. Any technology independent
definition of "death" should conclude that such a person is not dead, for a
sufficiently advanced technology could restore the person to a healthy state.
On the flip side of the coin, if the structures encoding memory and
personality have suffered sufficient damage to obliterate them beyond
recognition, then death by the information theoretic criterion has occurred. An
effective method of insuring such destruction is to burn the structure and stir
the ashes. This is commonly employed to insure the destruction of classified
documents. Under the name of "cremation" it is also employed on human beings and
is sufficient to insure that death by the information theoretic criterion takes
place.
More Exotic ApproachesIt is not obvious that the preservation of life
requires the physical repair or even the preservation of the brain[11,12].
Although the brain is made of neurons, synapses, protoplasm, DNA and the like;
most modern philosophers of consciousness view these details as no more
significant than hair color or clothing style. Three samples follow.
The ethicist and prolific author Robert Veatch said, in Death, Dying, and
the Biological Revolution, "An `artificial brain' is not possible at present,
but a walking, talking, thinking individual who had one would certainly be considered
living."[15, page 23].
The noted philosopher of consciousness Paul Churchland said, in Matter and
Consciousness, "If machines do come to simulate all of our internal cognitive
activities, to the last computational detail, to deny them the status of genuine
persons would be nothing but a new form of racism."[12, page 120].
Hans Moravec, renowned roboticist and Director of the Mobile Robot Lab at Carnegie
Mellon said, "Body-identity assumes that a person is defined by the stuff of
which a human body is made. Only by maintaining continuity of body stuff can
we preserve an individual person. Pattern-identity, conversely, defines the
essence of a person, say myself, as the pattern and the process
going on in my head and body, not the machinery supporting that process. If
the process is preserved, I am preserved. The rest is mere jelly."[50, page
117].
We'll Use the Conservative ApproachRestoration of the existing
structure will be more difficult than building an artificial brain (particularly
if the restoration is down to the molecular level). Despite this, we will
examine the technically more exacting problem of restoration because it is more
generally acceptable. Most people accept the idea that restoring the brain to a
healthy state in a healthy body is a desirable objective. A range of
increasingly less restrictive objectives (as described) are possible. To the
extent that more relaxed criteria are acceptable, the technical problems are
much less demanding. By deliberately adopting such a conservative position, we
lay ourselves open to the valid criticism that the methods described here are
unlikely to prove necessary. Simpler techniques that relax to some degree the
philosophical constraints we have imposed might well be adopted in practice. In
this paper we will eschew the more exotic possibilities (without, however,
adopting any position on their desirability).
Another issue is not so much philosophical as emotional. Major surgery is not
a pretty sight. There are few people who can watch a surgeon cut through living
tissue with equanimity. In a heart transplant, for example, surgeons cut open
the chest of a dying patient to rip out their dying heart, cut open a fresh
cadaver to seize its still-beating heart, and then stitch the cadaver's heart
into the dying patients chest. Despite this (which would have been condemned in
the middle ages as the blackest of black magic), we cheer the patient's return
to health and are thankful that we live in an era when medicine can save lives
that were formerly lost.
The mechanics of examining and repairing the human brain, possibly down to
the level of individual molecules, might not be the best topic for after dinner
conversation. While the details will vary depending on the specific method used,
this could also be described by lurid language that failed to capture the
central issue: the restoration to full health of a human being.
A final issue that should be addressed is that of changes introduced by the
process of restoration itself. The exact nature and extent of these changes will
vary with the specific method. Current surgical techniques, for example, result
in substantial tissue changes. Scarring, permanent implants, prosthetics, etc.
are among the more benign outcomes. In general, methods based on a sophisticated
ability to rearrange atomic structure should result in minimal undesired
alterations to the tissue.
"Minimal changes" does not mean "no changes." A modest amount of change in
molecular structure, whatever technique is used, is both unavoidable and
insignificant. The molecular structure of the human brain is in a constant state
of change during life -- molecules are synthesized, utilized, and catabolized in
a continuous cycle. Cells continuously undergo slight changes in morphology.
Cells also make small errors in building their own parts. For example, ribosomes
make errors when they build proteins. About one amino acid in every 10,000 added
to a growing polypeptide chain by a ribosome is incorrect[14, page 383]. Changes
and errors of a similar magnitude introduced by the process of restoration can
reasonably be neglected.
Does the Information Theoretic Criterion Matter?
It is normally a matter of small concern whether a physician of 2190 would or
would not concur with the diagnosis of "death" by a contemporary physician applied
to a specific patient in 1990. A physician of today who found himself in 1790
would be able to do little for a patient whose heart had stopped, even though
he knew intellectually that an intensive care unit would likely be able to save
the patients life. Intensive care units were simply not available in 1790, no
matter what the physician knew was possible. So, too, with the physician of today
when informed that a physician 200 years hence could save the life of the patient
that he has just pronounced "dead." There is nothing he can do, for he can only
apply the technologies of today -- except in the case of cryonic suspension.
In this one instance, we must ask not whether the person is dead by today's
(clearly technology dependent) criteria, but whether the person is dead by all
future criteria. In short, we must ask whether death by the information
theoretic criterion has taken place. If it has not, then cryonic suspension is a
reasonable (and indeed life saving) course of action.
Experimental Proof or Disproof of CryonicsIt is often said that
"cryonics is freezing the dead." It is more accurate to say that "cryonics is
freezing the terminally ill. Whether or not they are dead remains to be seen."
The scientifically correct experiment to verify that cryonics works (or
demonstrate that it does not work) is quite easy to describe:
- Select N experimental subjects.
- Freeze them.
- Wait 100 years.
- See if the technology available 100 years from now can (or cannot) cure
them.
The drawback of this experimental protocol is obvious: we can't get the results
for 100 years. This problem is fundamental. The use of future technology is an
inherent part of cryonics. Criticisms of cryonics based on the observation
that freezing and thawing mammals with present technology don't work are irrelevant,
for that is not what is being proposed.
This kind of problem is not entirely unique to cryonics. A new AIDS treatment
might undergo clinical trials lasting a few years. The ethical dilemma posed by
the terminally ill AIDS patient who might be assisted by the experimental
treatment is well known. If the AIDS patient is given the treatment prior to
completion of the clinical trials, it is possible that his situation could be
made significantly worse. On the other hand, to deny a potentially life saving
treatment to someone who will soon die anyway is ethically untenable.
In the case of cryonics this is not an interim dilemma pending the (near term)
outcome of clinical trials. It is a dilemma inherent in the nature of the proposal.
Clinical trials, the bulwark of modern medical practice, are useless in resolving
the effectiveness of cryonics in a timely fashion.
Further, cryonics (virtually by definition) is a procedure used only when the
patient has exhausted all other available options. In current practice the
patient is suspended after legal death: the fear that the treatment might prove
worse than the disease is absent. Of course, suspension of the terminally ill
patient somewhat before legal death has significant advantages. A patient
suffering from a brain tumor might view suspension following the obliteration of
his brain as significantly less desirable than suspension prior to such
obliteration, even if the suspension occurred at a point in time when the
patient was legally "alive."
In such a case, it is inappropriate to disregard or override the patient's
own wishes. To quote the American College of Physicians Ethics Manual, "Each
patient is a free agent entitled to full explanation and full decision-making
authority with regard to his medical care. John Stuart Mill expressed it as:
`Over himself, his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.' The legal
counterpart of patient autonomy is self-determination. Both principles deny
legitimacy to paternalism by stating unequivocally that, in the last analysis,
the patient determines what is right for him." "If the [terminally ill] patient
is a mentally competent adult, he has the legal right to accept or refuse any
form of treatment, and his wishes must be recognized and honored by his
physician."[92]
If clinical trials cannot provide us with an answer, are there any other
methods of evaluating the proposal? Can we do more than say that (a) cryonic
suspension can do no harm (in keeping with the Hippocratic oath), and (b) it has
some difficult-to-define chance of doing good?
Failure Criteria
Trying to prove something false is often the simplest method of clarifying exactly
what is required to make it true. A consideration of the information theoretic
criterion of death makes it clear that, from a technical point of view (ignoring
various non-technical issues) there are two and only two ways in which cryonics
can fail [note 10].
Cryonics will fail if:
- Information theoretic death occurs prior to reaching liquid nitrogen temperature
[note 11].
- Repair technology that is feasible in principle is never developed and
applied in practice, even after the passage of centuries.
The first
failure criterion can only be considered against the background of current
understanding of freezing damage, ischemic injury and mechanisms of memory and
synaptic plasticity. Whether or not memory and personality are destroyed in the
information theoretic sense by freezing and the ischemic injury that might
precede it can only be answered by considering both the physical nature of
memory and the nature of the damage to which the brain is subjected before
reaching the stability provided by storage in liquid nitrogen. The following
sections will therefore provide brief reviews of these subjects.
The second failure criterion is considered in the later sections on technical
issues, which discuss in more detail how future technologies might be applied to
the repair of frozen tissue.
As the reader will readily appreciate, the following reviews will consider
only the most salient points that are of the greatest importance in determining
overall feasibility. They are necessarily too short to consider the topics in
anything like full detail, but should provide sufficient information to give
the reader an overview of the relevant issues. References to further reading
are provided throughout [note 12].
FREEZING DAMAGE
There is an extensive literature on the damage caused by both cooling and
freezing to liquid nitrogen temperatures. Some reviews are[5, 6, 68, 70]. Scientific
American had a recent and quite accessible article[57]. In this section, we
briefly review the nature of such damage and consider whether it is likely to
cause information theoretic death. Damage, per se, is not meaningful except
to the extent that it obscures or obliterates the nature of the original structure.
While cooling tissue to around 0 degrees C creates a number of problems, the
ability to cool mammals to this temperature or even slightly below (with no ice
formation) using current methods followed by subsequent complete recovery[61,
62] shows that this problem can be controlled and is unlikely to cause
information theoretic death. We will, therefore, ignore the problems caused by
such cooling. This problem is discussed in [5] and elsewhere.
Further, some "freezing" damage in fact occurs upon re- warming. Current work
supports this idea because the precise method used to re-warm tissue can
strongly affect the success or failure of present experiments even when freezing
conditions are identical[5, 6]. If we presume that future repair methods avoid
the step of re-warming the tissue prior to analysis and instead analyze the
tissue directly in the frozen state then this source of damage will be
eliminated. Several current methods can be used to distinguish between damage
that occurs during freezing and damage that occurs while thawing. At present, it
seems likely that some damage occurs during each process. While significant
damage does occur during slow freezing, it does not induce structural changes
which obliterate the cell.
Present Day Successes
Many types of tissue including human embryos, sperm, skin, bone, red and white
blood cells, bone marrow, and others [5, 6, 59] have been frozen in liquid nitrogen,
thawed, and have recovered. This is not true of whole mammals [note 13]. The brain seems more resistant than most organs to
freezing damage[58, 79]. Recovery of overall brain function following freezing
to liquid nitrogen temperature has not been demonstrated, although recovery of
unit level electrical activity following freezing to -60 degrees C has been demonstrated[79].
FracturesPerhaps the most dramatic injury caused by freezing is
macroscopic fractures[56]. Tissue becomes extremely brittle at or below the
"glass transition temperature" at about 140K. Continued cooling to 77K (the
temperature of liquid nitrogen) creates tensile stress in the glassy material.
This is exacerbated by the skull, which inhibits shrinkage of the cranial
contents. This stress causes readily evident macroscopic fractures in the
tissue.
Fractures that occur below the glass transition temperature result in very
little information loss. While dramatic, this damage is unlikely to cause or
contribute to information theoretic death.
IceThe damage most commonly associated with freezing is that caused by
ice. Contrary to common belief, freezing does not cause cells to burst open like
water pipes on a cold winter's day. Quite the contrary, ice formation takes
place outside the cells in the extracellular region. This is largely due to the
presence of extracellular nucleating agents on which ice can form, and the
comparative absence of intracellular nucleating agents. Consequently the
intracellular liquid supercools.
Extracellular ice formation causes an increase in the concentration of the
extra-cellular solute, e.g., the chemicals in the extracellular liquid are
increased in concentration by the decrease in available water. The immediate
effect of this increased extracellular concentration is to draw water out of the
cells by osmosis. Thus, freezing dehydrates cells.
Damage can be caused by the extracellular ice, by the increased concentration
of solute, or by the reduced temperature itself. All three mechanisms can play a
role under appropriate conditions.
The damage caused by extracellular ice formation depends largely on the
fraction of the initial liquid volume that is converted to ice[6, 57]. (The
initial liquid volume might include a significant amount of cryoprotectant as
well as water). When the fraction of the liquid volume converted to ice is
small, damage is often reversible even by current techniques. In many cases,
conversion of significantly more than 40% of the liquid volume to ice is
damaging[70, page 134; 71]. The brain is more resistant to such injury:
conversion of up to 60% of the liquid volume in the brain to ice is associated
with recovery of neuronal function[58, 62, 66, 82]. Storey and Storey said "If
the cell volume falls below a critical minimum, then the bilayer of
phospholipids in the membrane becomes so greatly compressed that its structure
breaks down. Membrane transport functions cannot be maintained, and breaks in
the membrane spill cell contents and provide a gate for ice to propagate into
the cell. Most freeze-tolerant animals reach the critical minimum cell volume
when about 65 percent of total body water is sequestered as ice."[57].
Appropriate treatment with cryoprotectants (in particular glycerol) prior to freezing
will keep 40% or more of the liquid volume from being converted to ice even at
liquid nitrogen temperatures.
Fahy has said "All of the postulated problems in cryobiology -- cell packing
[omitted reference], channel size constraints [omitted reference], optimal cooling
rate differences for mixed cell populations [omitted reference], osmotically
mediated injury[omitted references], and the rest -- can be solved in principle
by the selection of a sufficiently high concentration of cryoprotectant prior
to freezing. In the extreme case, all ice formation could be suppressed completely
by using a concentration of agent sufficient to ensure vitrification of the
biological system in question [omitted reference]"[73]. Unfortunately, a concentration
of cryoprotectant sufficiently high to protect the system from all freezing
injury would itself be injurious[73]. It should be possible to trade the mechanical
injury caused by ice formation for the biochemical injury caused by the cryoprotectant,
which is probably advantageous. Current suspension protocols at Alcor call for
the introduction of greater than 6 molar glycerol. Both venous and arterial
glycerol concentrations have exceeded 6 molar in several recent suspensions.
If this concentration of cryoprotectant is also reaching the tissues, it should
keep over 60% of the initial liquid volume from being converted to ice at liquid
nitrogen temperatures [note 14].
Concentration Effects"Dehydration and concentration of solutes past
some critical level may disrupt metabolism and denature cell proteins and
macromolecular complexes"[70, page 125]. The functional losses caused by this
mechanism seem unlikely to result in significant information loss. One
qualification to this conclusion is that cell membranes appear to be weakened by
increased solute concentration[5, page 92]. To the extent that structural
elements are weakened by increased solute concentrations the vulnerability of
the cell to structural damage is increased.
DenaturingFinally, denaturing of proteins might occur at low
temperature. In this process the tertiary and perhaps even secondary structure
of the protein might be disrupted leading to significant loss of protein
function. However, the primary structure of the protein (the linear sequence of
amino acids) is still intact and so inference of the correct functional state of
the protein is in principle trivial. Further, the extent of protein denaturation
caused by freezing must necessarily be limited given the relatively wide range
of tissues that have been successfully frozen and thawed.
Intracellular FreezingIntracellular freezing is another damaging event
which might occur[6]. If cooling is slow enough to allow the removal of most of
the water from the cell's interior by osmosis, then the high concentration of
solute will prevent the small amount of remaining water from freezing. If
cooling is too rapid, there will be insufficient time for the water within the
cell to escape before it freezes. In the latter case, the intracellular contents
are supercooled and freezing is abrupt (the cell "flashes"). While this
correlates with a failure to recover function[5, 6, 68, 70] it is difficult to
believe that rapid freezing results in significant loss of information.
Intracellular freezing is largely irrelevant to cryonic suspensions because
of the slow freezing rates dictated by the large mass of tissue being frozen.
Such freezing rates are too slow for intracellular freezing to occur except when
membrane rupture allows extracellular ice to penetrate the intracellular region.
If the membrane does fail, one would expect the interior of the cell to "flash."
Loss of Information versus Loss of Function
Spontaneous recovery of function following freezing to liquid nitrogen temperatures
using the best currently available techniques appears unlikely for mammalian
organs, including the brain. Despite this, the level of structural preservation
can be quite good. The complexity of the systems that have been successfully
frozen and rewarmed is remarkable, and supports the claim that good structural
preservation is often achieved. The mechanisms of damage that have been postulated
in the literature are sufficiently subtle that information loss is likely to
be small; that is, death by the information theoretic criterion is unlikely
to have occurred. Further research aimed specifically at addressing this issue
is needed.
ISCHEMIC INJURY AND PRESUSPENSION INJURY
Although modern cryonic suspensions can involve minimal delay [note 15] and future suspensions might eliminate
delay entirely [note 16], delay is sometimes unavoidable [note 17]. The most significant type of damage
that such delay causes is ischemic injury.
Broadly speaking, the structure of the human brain remains intact for several
hours or more following the cessation of blood flow, or ischemia. The tissue
changes that occur subsequent to ischemia have been well studied. There have
also been studies of the "postmortem" changes that occur in tissue. Perhaps the
most interesting of these studies was conducted by Kalimo et. al.[65].
"Postmortem" Changes in the Human BrainMany researchers have examined
postmortem changes in neuronal tissues. In "A Comparison of Methodologies for
the Study of Functional Transmitter Neurochemistry in Human Brain" Dodd et
al.[124] said
Effects of postmortem delay. Some brain functions are
damaged irreversibly within minutes of the cessation of blood flow to the
tissue. This led to the widespread belief that it would be impossible to
isolate metabolically active and responsive preparations very long after death
and use them to study neurotransmission. However, this is a misconception;
many groups have successfully obtained functional preparations from normal
(Table 1) [not present in this article] and pathological (Table 2) [not
present in this article] human brain tissue from autopsies carried out up to
24 h or more postmortem. This is perhaps less surprising when the stability of
enzymes, receptors, and nucleic acids is taken into consideration (see Hardy
and Dodd, 1983 [reference 123 in this article]). With very few exceptions, the
brain retains the metabolic machinery to reconstitute tissue metabolite and
neurotransmitter pools. It also appears that sufficient structural integrity
is retained to allow the various tissue compartments to remain relatively
intact and distinct.
Experiments with both animal and human brain have shown that viable
preparations can be isolated routinely up to at least 24 h postmortem, a time
scale within which a sufficient number of autopsies is carried out to allow
extensive neurochemical studies. When the human subject has died suddenly (see
below) [not in this article], such preparations exhibit the same range of
characteristics as preparations made from fresh animal tissue, or from fresh
human tissue obtained at biopsy or neurosurgery. Thus incubated synaptosomes
and brain slices from postmortem human brain respire, accumulate tissue
potassium, maintain membrane potentials, release neurotransmitters in a
calcium-dependent fashion, and possess active, sodium - dependent uptake
systems (see Table 1 for references [not in this article]). Electron
microscopic examination of synaptosome preparations from postmortem human
brain showed them to be only slightly less pure than preparations from fresh
tissue, although some degree of damage is evident (Hardy et al., 1982 [not in
this article]). In order to study immediate "postmortem"
changes, Kalimo et. al. perfused the brains of 5 patients with aldehydes within
half an hour of "clinical death". Subsequent examination of the preserved brain
tissue with both light and electron microscopy showed the level of structural
preservation. In two cases, the changes described were consistent with
approximately one to two hours of ischemic injury. (Ischemic injury often begins
prior to declaration of "clinical death", hence the apparently longer ischemic
period compared with the interval following declaration of death and prior to
perfusion of fixative). Physical preservation of cellular structure and
ultrastructure was excellent. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that
information loss was negligible in these cases. In two other cases, elevated
intraparenchymal pressure prevented perfusion with the preservative, thus
preventing examination of the tissue. Without such an examination, it is
difficult to draw conclusions about the extent of information loss. In the final
case, "...the most obvious abnormality was the replacement of approximately
four-fifths of the parenchyma of the brain by a fluid-containing cavity that was
lined by what seemed to be very thin remnants of the cerebral cortex." Cryonic
suspension in this last case would not be productive.
As an aside, the vascular perfusion of chemical fixatives to improve
stability of tissue structures prior to perfusion with cryoprotectants and
subsequent storage in liquid nitrogen would seem to offer significant
advantages. The main issue that would require resolution prior to such use is
the risk that fixation might obstruct circulation, thus impeding subsequent
perfusion with cryoprotectants. Other than this risk, the use of chemical
fixatives (such as aldehydes and in particular glutaraldehyde) would reliably
improve structural preservation and would be effective at halting almost all
deterioration within minutes of perfusion[67]. The utility of chemical
preservation has been discussed by Drexler[1] and by Olson[90], among others.
Ischemia
The events following ischemia have been reasonably well characterized. Following
experimental induction of ischemia in cats, Kalimo et. al.[74] found "The resulting
cellular alterations were homogeneous and uniform throughout the entire brain:
they included early chromatin clumping, gradually increasing electron lucency
of the cell sap, distention of endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi cisternae, transient
mitochondrial condensation followed by swelling and appearance of flocculent densities,
and dispersion of ribosomal rosettes." Energy levels within the cell drop sharply
within a few minutes of cessation of blood flow. The chromatin clumping is a reversible
early change. The loss of energy results fairly quickly in failure to maintain
trans- membrane concentration gradients (for example the Na+K+ pump stops working,
resulting in increased intracellular Na+ and increased extracellular K+). The
uneven equilibration of concentration gradients results in changes in osmotic
pressure with consequent flows of water. Swelling of mitochondria and other structures
occurs. The appearance of "flocculent densities" in the mitochondria is thought
to indicate severe internal membrane damage which is "irreversible."[note 18]
Ischemic changes do not appear to result in any damage that would prevent
repair (e.g., changes that would result in significant loss of information about
structure) for at least a few hours. Temporary functional recovery has been
demonstrated in optimal situations after as long as 60 minutes of total
ischemia[93, 94, 95]. Hossmann, for example, reported results on 143 cats
subjected to one hour of normothermic global brain ischemia[97]. "Body
temperature was maintained at 36 degrees to 37 degrees C with a heating pad. ...
Completeness of ischemia was tested by injecting 133Xe into the innominate
artery immediately before vascular occlusion and monitoring the absence of decay
of radioactivity from the head during ischemia, using external scintillation
detectors. ... In 50% of the animals, even major spontaneous EEG activity
returned after ischemia.... One cat survived for 1 yr after one hour of
normothermic cerebrocirculatory arrest with no electrophysiologic deficit and
with only minor neurologic and morphologic disturbances." Functional recovery is
a more stringent criterion than the more relaxed information theoretic
criterion, which merely requires adequate structural preservation to allow
inference about the pre-existing structure. Reliable identification of the
various cellular structures is possible hours (and sometimes even days) later.
Detailed descriptions of ischemia and its time course[72, page 209 et sequitur]
also clearly show that cooling substantially slows the rate of deterioration.
Thus, even moderate cooling "postmortem" slows deterioration significantly.
LysosomesThe theory that lysosomes ("suicide bags") rupture and
release digestive enzymes into the cell that result in rapid deterioration of
chemical structure appears to be incorrect. More broadly, there is a body of
work suggesting that structural deterioration does not take place rapidly.
Kalimo et. al.[74] said "It is noteworthy that after 120 min of complete
blood deprivation we saw no evidence of membrane lysosomal breakdown, an
observation which has also been reported in studies of in vitro lethal cell
injury[omitted references], and in regional cerebral ischemia[omitted
references]."
Hawkins et. al.[75] said "...lysosomes did not rupture for approximately 4
hours and in fact did not release the fluorescent dye until after reaching the
postmortem necrotic phase of injury. ... The original suicide bag mechanism of
cell damage thus is apparently not operative in the systems studied. Lysosomes
appear to be relatively stable organelles...."
Messenger RNA and ProteinMorrison and Griffin[76] said "We find that
both rat and human cerebellar mRNAs are surprisingly stable under a variety of
postmortem conditions and that biologically active, high-molecular-weight mRNAs
can be isolated from postmortem tissue. ... A comparison of RNA recoveries from
fresh rat cerebella and cerebella exposed to different postmortem treatments
showed that 83% of the total cytoplasmic RNAs present immediately postmortem was
recovered when rat cerebella were left at room temperature for 16 h [hours]
postmortem and that 90% was recovered when the cerebella were left at 4 degrees
C for this length of time .... In neither case was RNA recovery decreased by
storing the cerebella in liquid nitrogen prior to analysis. ... Control studies
on protein stability in postmortem rat cerebella show that the spectrum of
abundant proteins is also unchanged after up to 16 h [hours] at room
temperature...." Johnson et. al.[125] in "Extensive Postmortem Stability of RNA
From Rat and Human Brain" found that postmortem delays of as long as 48 hours
"...failed to reveal degradation of the specific rat brain mRNAs during the
postmortem period." They also said "We find no effect of postmortem delay on RNA
quality in both rat and human."
20 Million Year Survival of DNAThe ability of DNA to survive for long
periods was dramatically illustrated by its recovery and sequencing from a 17 to
20 million year old magnolia leaf[81]. "Sediments and fossils seem to have
accumulated in an anoxic lake bottom environment; they have remained unoxidized
and water- saturated to the present day." "Most leaves are preserved as
compression fossils, commonly retaining intact cellular tissue with considerable
ultrastructural preservation, including cell walls, leaf phytoliths, and
intracellular organelles, as well as many organic constituents such as
flavonoids and steroids[omitted references]. There is little evidence of
post-depositional (diagenetic) change in many of the leaf fossils."
ADDENDUM: A 1997 paper[130] critical of earlier work which
attempted to recover DNA from ancient sources said "Whereas ancient DNA
sequences from specimens younger than 100 000 years old have now been
replicated independently (Hagelberg et al. 1994; Hoss et al.
1994; Taylor 1996), we have singularly failed to recover authentic ancient DNA
from amber fossils."
For present purposes the distinction between 100,000 and 100,000,000 years
is not critical: both are substantially longer than the time that a person
might reasonably expect to stay in cryonic suspension.
Cell Cultures taken after "Death"Gilden et. al.[77] report that
"...nearly two-thirds of all tissue acquired in less than six hours after death
was successfully grown, whereas only one-third of all tissue acquired more than
six hours after death was successfully grown in tissue culture." While it would
be incorrect to conclude that widespread cellular survival occurred based on
these findings, they do show that structural deterioration is insufficient to
disrupt function in at least some cells. This supports the idea that structural
deterioration in many other cells should not be extensive.
Information Loss and IschemiaIt is currently possible to initiate
suspension immediately after legal death. In favorable circumstances legal death
can be declared upon cessation of heartbeat in an otherwise revivable terminally
ill patient who wishes to die a natural death and has refused artificial means
of prolonging the dying process. In such cases, the ischemic interval can be
short (two or three minutes). It is implausible that ischemic injury would cause
information theoretic death in such a case.
As the ischemic interval lengthens, the level of damage increases. It is not
clear exactly when information loss begins or when information theoretic death
occurs. Present evidence supports but does not prove the hypothesis that information
theoretic death does not occur for at least a few hours following the onset
of ischemia. Quite possibly many hours of ischemia can be tolerated. Freezing
of tissue within that time frame followed by long term storage in liquid nitrogen
should provide adequate preservation of structure to allow repair [note 19].
MEMORYIt is essential to ask whether the important structural
elements underlying "behavioral plasticity" (human memory and human personality)
are likely to be preserved by cryonic suspension. Clearly, if human memory is
stored in a physical form which is obliterated by freezing, then cryonic
suspension won't work. In this section we briefly consider a few major aspects
of what is known about long term memory and whether known or probable mechanisms
are likely to be preserved by freezing.
It appears likely that short term memory, which can be disrupted by trauma or
a number of other processes, will not be preserved by cryonic suspension.
Consolidation of short term memory into long term memory is a process that takes
several hours. We will focus attention exclusively on long term memory, for this
is far more stable. While the retention of short term memory cannot be excluded
(particularly if chemical preservation is used to provide rapid initial
fixation), its greater fragility renders this significantly less likely.
To see the Mona Lisa or Niagara Falls changes us, as does seeing a favorite
television show or reading a good book. These changes are both figurative and
literal, and it is the literal (or neuroscientific) changes that we are
interested in: what are the physical alterations that underlie memory?
Briefly, the available evidence supports the idea that memory and personality
are stored in identifiable physical changes in the nerve cells, and that
alterations in the synapses between nerve cells play a critical role.
Shepherd in "Neurobiology"[38, page 547] said: "The concept that brain
functions are mediated by cell assemblies and neuronal circuits has become
widely accepted, as will be obvious to the reader of this book, and most
neurobiologists believe that plastic changes at synapses are the underlying
mechanisms of learning and memory."
Kupfermann in "Principles of Neural Science"[13, page 1005] said: "Because of
the enduring nature of memory, it seems reasonable to postulate that in some way
the changes must be reflected in long-term alterations of the connections
between neurons."
Eric R. Kandel in "Principles of Neural Science" [13, page 1016] said:
"Morphological changes seem to be a signature of the long-term process. These
changes do not occur with short-term memory (Figure 65-6 [not reproduced here]).
Moreover, the structural changes that occur with the long- term process are not
restricted to the [sic] growth. Long- term habituation leads to the opposite
change---a regression and pruning of synaptic connections. With long-term
habituation, where the functional connections between the sensory neurons and
motor neurons are inactivated (Figure 65- 2[not reproduced]), the number of
terminals per neuron is correspondingly reduced by one-third (Figure 65-6[not
reproduced]) and the proportion of terminals with active zones is reduced from
40% to 10%."
Squire in "Memory and Brain"[109, page 10] said: "The most prevalent view has
been that the specificity of stored information is determined by the location of
synaptic changes in the nervous system and by the pattern of altered neuronal
interactions that these changes produce. This idea is largely accepted at the
present time, and will be explored further in this and succeeding chapters in
the light of current evidence."
Lynch, in "Synapses, Circuits, and the Beginnings of Memory"[34, page 3]
said: "The question of which components of the neuron are responsible for
storage is vital to attempts to develop generalized hypotheses about how the
brain encodes and makes use of memory. Since individual neurons receive and
generate thousands of connections and hence participate in what must be a vast
array of potential circuits, most theorists have postulated a central role for
synaptic modifications in memory storage."
Turner and Greenough said "Two non-mutually exclusive possible mechanisms of
brain information storage have remained the leading theories since their
introduction by Ramon y Cajal [omitted reference] and Tanzi [omitted reference].
The first hypothesis is that new synapse formation, or selected synapse
retention, yields altered brain circuitry which encodes new information. The
second is that altered synaptic efficacy brings about similar change."[22].
Greenough and Bailey in "The anatomy of a memory: convergence of results
across a diversity of tests"[39] say: "More recently it has become clear that
the arrangement of synaptic connections in the mature nervous system can undergo
striking changes even during normal functioning. As the diversity of species and
plastic processes subjected to morphological scrutiny has increased, convergence
upon a set of structurally detectable phenomena has begun to emerge. Although
several aspects of synaptic structure appear to change with experience, the most
consistent potential substrate for memory storage during behavioral modification
is an alteration in the number and/or pattern of synaptic connections."
It seems likely, therefore, that human long term memory is encoded by
detectable physical changes in cell structure and in particular in synaptic
structure.
Plastic Changes in Model SystemsWhat, exactly, might these changes be?
Very strong statements are possible in simple "model systems". Bailey and Chen,
for example, identified several specific changes in synaptic structure that
encoded learned memories from sea slugs (Aplysia californica) by direct
examination of the changed synapse with an electron microscope[36].
"Using horseradish peroxidase (HRP) to label the presynaptic terminals
(varicosities) of sensory neurons and serial reconstruction to analyze synaptic
contacts, we compared the fine structure of identified sensory neuron synapses
in control and behaviorally modified animals. Our results indicate that learning
can modulate long-term synaptic effectiveness by altering the number, size, and
vesical complement of synaptic active zones."
Examination by transmission electron microscopy in vacuum of sections 100
nanometers (several hundred atomic diameters) thick recovers little or no
chemical information. Lateral resolution is at best a few nanometers (tens of
atomic diameters), and depth information (within the 100 nanometer section) is
entirely lost. Specimen preparation included removal and desheathing of the
abdominal ganglion which was then bathed in seawater for 30 minutes before
impalement and intrasomatic pressure injection of HRP. Two hours later the
ganglia were fixed, histochemically processed, and embedded. Following this
treatment, Bailey and Chen concluded that "...clear structural changes accompany
behavioral modification, and those changes can be detected at the level of
identified synapses that are critically involved in learning."
The following observations about this work seem in order. First, several
different types of changes were present. This provides redundant evidence of
synaptic alteration. Inability to detect one type of change, or obliteration of
one specific type of change, would not be sufficient to prevent recovery of the
"state" of the synapse. Second, examination by electron microscopy is much
cruder than the techniques considered here which literally propose to analyze
every molecule in the structure. Further alterations in synaptic chemistry will
be detectable when the synapse is examined in more detail at the molecular
level. Third, there is no reason to believe that freezing would obliterate the
structure beyond recognition.
Implications for Human MemorySuch satisfying evidence is at present
confined to "model systems;" what can we conclude about more complex systems,
e.g., humans? Certainly, it seems safe to say that synaptic alterations are also
used in the human memory system, that synaptic changes of various types take
place when the synapse "remembers" something, that the changes involve
alterations in at least many thousands of molecules and probably involve
mechanisms similar to those used in lower organisms (evolution is notoriously
conservative).
It seems likely that knowledge of the morphology and connectivity of nerve
cells along with some specific knowledge of the biochemical state of the cells
and synapses would be sufficient to determine memory and personality. Perhaps,
however, some fundamentally different mechanism is present in humans? Even if
this were to prove true, any such system would be sharply constrained by the
available evidence. It would have to persist over the lifetime of a human being,
and thus would have to be quite stable. It would have to tolerate the natural
conditions encountered by humans and the experimental conditions to which
primates have been subjected without loss of memory and personality (presuming
that the primate brain is similar to the human brain). And finally, it would
almost certainly involve changes in tens of thousands of molecules to store each
bit of information. Functional studies of human long term memory suggest it has
a capacity of only 10^9 bits (somewhat over 100 megabytes)[37]
(though this did not consider motor memory, e.g., the information storage
required when learning to ride a bicycle). Such a low memory capacity suggests
that, independent of the specific mechanism, a great many molecules are required
to remember each bit. It even suggests that many synapses are used to store each
bit (recall there are perhaps 10^15 synapses -- which implies some
10^6 synapses per bit of information stored in long term memory).
Given that future technology will allow the molecule-by- molecule analysis
of the structures that store memory, and given that such structures are large
on the molecular scale (involving at least tens of thousands of molecules each)
then it appears unlikely that such structures will survive the lifetime of the
individual only to be obliterated beyond recognition by freezing. Freezing is
unlikely to cause information theoretic death.
TECHNICAL OVERVIEWEven if information theoretic death has not
occurred, a frozen brain is not a healthy structure. While repair might be
feasible in principle, it would be comforting to have at least some idea about
how such repairs might be done in practice. As long as we assume that the laws
of physics, chemistry, and biochemistry with which we are familiar today will
still form the basic framework within which repair will take place in the
future, we can draw well founded conclusions about the capabilities and limits
of any such repair technology.
The Nature of This ProposalTo decide whether or not to pursue cryonic
suspension we must answer one question: will restoration of frozen tissue to a
healthy and functional state ever prove feasible? If the answer is "yes," then
cryonics will save lives. If the answer is "no," then it can be ignored. As
discussed earlier, effectively the most that we can usefully learn about frozen
tissue is the type, location and orientation of each molecule. If this
information is sufficient to permit inference of the healthy state with memory
and personality intact, then repair is in principle feasible. The most that
future technology could offer, therefore, is the ability to restore the
structure whenever such restoration was feasible in principle. We propose that
just this limit will be closely approached by future advances in technology.
It is unreasonable to think that the current proposal will in fact form the
basis for future repair methods for two reasons:
First, better technologies and approaches are likely to be developed.
Necessarily, we must restrict ourselves to methods and techniques that can be
analyzed and understood using the currently understood laws of physics and
chemistry. Future scientific advances, not anticipated at this time, are likely
to result in cheaper, simpler or more reliable methods. Given the history of
science and technology to date, the probability of future unanticipated advances
is good.
Second, this proposal was selected because of its conceptual simplicity and
its obvious power to restore virtually any structure where restoration is in
principle feasible. These are unlikely to be design objectives of future
systems. Conceptual simplicity is advantageous when the resources available for
the design process are limited. Future design capabilities can reasonably be
expected to outstrip current capabilities, and the efforts of a large group can
reasonably be expected to allow analysis of much more complex proposals than
considered here.
Further, future systems will be designed to restore specific individuals
suffering from specific types of damage, and can therefore use specific methods
that are less general but which are more efficient or less costly for the
particular type of damage involved. It is easier for a general-purpose proposal
to rely on relatively simple and powerful methods, even if those methods are
less efficient.
Why, then, discuss a powerful, general purpose method that is inefficient,
fails to take advantage of the specific types of damage involved, and which will
almost certainly be superseded by future technology?
The purpose of this paper is not to lay the groundwork for future systems,
but to answer a question: will cryonics work? The value of cryonics is clearly
and decisively based on technical capabilities that will not be developed for
several decades (or longer). If some relatively simple proposal appears likely
to work, then the value of cryonics is established. Whether or not that simple
proposal is actually used is irrelevant. The fact that it could be used in the
improbable case that all other technical progress and all other approaches fail
is sufficient to let us decide today whether or not cryonic suspension is of
value.
The philosophical issues involved in this type of long range technical forecasting
and the methodologies appropriate to this area are addressed by work in "exploratory
engineering."[1, 85] The purpose of exploratory engineering is to provide lower
bounds on future technical capabilities based on currently understood scientific
principles. A successful example is Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's forecast around
the turn of the century that multi-staged rockets could go to the moon. His
forecast was based on well understood principles of Newtonian mechanics. While
it did not predict when such flights would take place, nor who would develop
the technology, nor the details of the Saturn V booster, it did predict that
the technical capability was feasible and would eventually be developed. In
a similar spirit, we will discuss the technical capabilities that should be
feasible and what those capabilities should make possible.
Conceptually, the approach that we will follow is simple:
- Determine the coordinates and orientations of all major molecules, and
store this information in a data base.
- Analyze the information stored in the data base with a computer program
which determines what changes in the existing structure should be made to
restore it to a healthy and functional state.
- Take the original molecules and move them, one at a time, back to their
correct locations.
The reader will no doubt agree that this proposal
is conceptually simple, but might be concerned about a number of technical
issues. The major issues are addressed in the following analysis.
An obvious inefficiency of this approach is that it will take apart and then
put back together again structures and whole regions that are in fact functional
or only slightly damaged. Simply leaving a functional region intact, or using
relatively simple special case repair methods for minor damage would be faster
and less costly. Despite these obvious drawbacks, the general purpose approach
demonstrates the principles involved. As long as the inefficiencies are not so
extreme that they make the approach infeasible or uneconomical in the long run,
then this simpler approach is easier to evaluate.
Overview of the Brain.The brain has a volume of 1350 cubic centimeters
(about one and a half quarts) and a weight of slightly more than 1400 grams
(about three pounds). The smallest normal human brain weighed 1100 grams, while
the largest weighed 2050 grams [30, page 24]. It is almost 80% water by weight.
The remaining 20% is slightly less than 40% protein, slightly over 50% lipids,
and a few percent of other material[16, page 419]. Thus, an average brain has
slightly over 100 grams of protein, about 175 grams of lipids, and some 30 to 40
grams of "other stuff".
How Many MoleculesIf we are considering restoration down to the
molecular level, an obvious question is: how many molecules are there? We can
easily approximate the answer, starting with the proteins. An "average" protein
molecule has a molecular weight of about 50,000 amu. One mole of "average"
protein is 50,000 grams (by definition), so the 100 grams of protein in the
brain is 100/50,000 or .002 moles. One mole is 6.02 x 10^23
molecules, so .002 moles is 1.2 x 10^21 molecules.
We proceed in the same way for the lipids (lipids are most often used to make
cell membranes) -- a "typical" lipid might have a molecular weight of 500 amu,
which is 100 times less than the molecular weight of a protein. This implies the
brain has about 175/500 x 6.02 x 10^23 or about 2 x 10^23
lipid molecules.
Finally, water has a molecular weight of 18, so there will be about 1400 x
0.8/18 x 6.02 x 10^23 or about 4 x 10^25 water molecules
in the brain. In many cases a substantial percentage of water will have been
replaced with cryoprotectant during the process of suspension; glycerol at a
concentration of 4 molar or more, for example. Both water and glycerol will be
treated in bulk, and so the change from water molecules to glycerol (or other
cryoprotectants) should not have a significant impact on the calculations that
follow.
These numbers are fundamental. Repair of the brain down to the molecular
level will require that we cope with them in some fashion.
How Much TimeAnother parameter whose value we must decide is the amount
of repair time per molecule. We assume that such repair time includes the time
required to determine the location of the molecule in the frozen tissue and the
time required to restore the molecule to its correct location, as well as the
time to diagnose and repair any structural defects in the molecule. The
computational power required to analyze larger-scale structural damage -- e.g.,
this mitochondria has suffered damage to its internal membrane structure (so
called "flocculent densities") -- should be less than the power required to
analyze each individual molecule. An analysis at the level of sub-cellular
organelles involves several orders of magnitude fewer components and will
therefore require correspondingly less computational power. Analysis at the
cellular level involves even fewer components. We therefore neglect the time
required for these additional computational burdens. The total time required for
repair is just the sum over all molecules of the time required by one repair
device to repair that molecule divided by the number of repair devices. The more
repair devices there are, the faster the repair will be. The more molecules
there are, and the more time it takes to repair each molecule, the slower repair
will be.
The time required for a ribosome to manufacture a protein molecule of 400 amino
acids is about 10 seconds[14, page 393], or about 25 milliseconds to add each
amino acid. DNA polymerase III can add an additional base to a replicating DNA
strand in about 7 milliseconds[14, page 289]. In both cases, synthesis takes
place in solution and involves significant delays while the needed components
diffuse to the reactive sites. The speed of assembler-directed reactions is
likely to prove faster than current biological systems. The arm of an assembler
should be capable of making a complete motion and causing a single chemical
transformation in about a microsecond [85]. However, we will conservatively
base our computations on the speed of synthesis already demonstrated by biological
systems, and in particular on the slower speed of protein synthesis.
We must do more than synthesize the required molecules -- we must analyze the
existing molecules, possibly repair them, and also move them from their original
location to the desired final location. Existing antibodies can identify
specific molecular species by selectively binding to them, so identifying
individual molecules is feasible in principle. Even assuming that the actual
technology employed is different it seems unlikely that such analysis will
require substantially longer than the synthesis time involved, so it seems
reasonable to multiply the synthesis time by a factor of a few to provide an
estimate of time spent per molecule. This should, in principle, allow time for
the complete disassembly and reassembly of the selected molecule using methods
no faster than those employed in biological systems. While the precise size of
this multiplicative factor can reasonably be debated, a factor of 10 should be
sufficient. The total time required to simply move a molecule from its original
location to its correct final location in the repaired structure should be
smaller than the time required to disassemble and reassemble it, so we will
assume that the total time required for analysis, repair and movement is 100
seconds per protein molecule.
Temperature of AnalysisWarming the tissue before determining its
molecular structure creates definite problems: everything will move around. A
simple solution to this problem is to keep the tissue frozen until after all the
desired structural information is recovered. In this case the analysis will take
place at a low temperature. Whether or not subsequent operations should be
performed at the same low temperature is left open. A later section considers
the various approaches that can be taken to restore the structure after it has
been analyzed.
Repair or Replace?In practice, most molecules will probably be intact
-- they would not have to be either disassembled or reassembled. This should
greatly reduce repair time. On a more philosophical note, existing biological
systems generally do not bother to repair macromolecules (a notable exception is
DNA -- a host of molecular mechanisms for the repair of this molecule are used
in most organisms). Most molecules are generally used for a period of time and
then broken down and replaced. There is a slow and steady turnover of molecular
structure -- the atoms in the roast beef sandwich eaten yesterday are used today
to repair and replace muscles, skin, nerve cells, etc. If we adopted nature's
philosophy we would simply discard and replace any damaged molecules, greatly
simplifying molecular "repair".
Carried to its logical conclusion, we would discard and replace all the
molecules in the structure. Having once determined the type, location and
orientation of a molecule in the original (frozen) structure, we would simply
throw that molecule out without further examination and replace it. This
requires only that we be able to identify the location and type of individual
molecules. It would not be necessary to determine if the molecule was damaged,
nor would it be necessary to correct any damage found. By definition, the
replacement molecule would be taken from a stock-pile of structurally correct
molecules that had been previously synthesized, in bulk, by the simplest and
mos |