Some Thoughts on Ken Hayworth’s Proposal

[FEATURED ARTICLE]

Cryonics, 2nd Quarter 2011

By Mike Perry

This article is a response to: Kenneth J. Hayworth – The Brain Preservation Technology Prize: A Challenge to Cryonicists, a Challenge to Scientists

I think it is commendable that Ken Hayworth is offering a prize for demonstrated, near-perfect brain preservation at the synaptic level where identity-critical structure appears to be seated. I’m sure it will aid the cryonics movement, both at the technical level and publicity-wise. Neuroscientists may then have a more favorable attitude toward cryonics (or whatever preservation approach is found effective) and some may be persuaded to support cryonics, along with medical professionals and scientists more generally and, following their lead, the public at large.

Here though I have to inject a firm doubt that it will start a major wave of signups among any of these groups, even the neuroscientists themselves. Experience of some decades suggests that people have deep-seated emotional reasons for rejecting cryonics, that lie within the subconscious and are generally not fully understood. Sometimes, for instance, they will cite the cost of the procedure as their reason for not making the arrangements, and steadfastly maintain this position as if it were the primary deterrent. But if you then make an offer to bear the cost yourself or otherwise raise the funding, they simply switch to another reason to decline. (Or, as in one case I know of who is now buried, exercise a “pocket veto” by not further commenting.) In general the arguments given against choosing cryonics, if not focusing strongly on religious issues, seem to be of a straw-man character that obscures deeper psychological impediments. Such obstacles will only be overcome by particularly strong evidence. At minimum, perhaps it would take the successful, repeatable resuscitation of a cryopreserved organ such as a heart or kidney, which could then be used to save the life of a patient. Of course I would be glad to be proved wrong but that’s the way matters appear to stand. And of course I think the effort is worth it even if only a modest or nonexistent uptick in signups results, given the expected technical advances and attendant favorable publicity. (Indeed, cryonics signups could be increased substantially and greatly benefit the movement even if the effects on the population as a whole were minuscule.)

I also want to comment about the overall tone of Ken’s proposal: optimistic in important ways, but sometimes more pessimistic than it should be. He makes a good case that the basic idea of cryonics is sound and ought to be pursued. And, of course, we do want better procedures and it would be good to have a mechanism in place to reward a successful effort to find one. Such an effort is certainly warranted—our procedures are not as good as we’d like and we don’t expect they will be anytime soon. I will also here note my heartfelt approval for Ken’s interest in finding a viable, low-cost alternative to expensive cryopreservation. “Improvement” can have a financial as well as a technical dimension, at least for the many of us who are not wealthy.

Ken, on the other hand, is pessimistic about present and past protocols for cryopreservation (though in fact an Alcor member of long standing, as he informs us). Some of it I think is unwarranted. For example, he says, “As a neuroscientist I have no problem stating the minimum conditions that [cryopreservation] needs to meet for it to allow possible future revival of the individual with memories and personality intact – the precise connectivity of the brain’s hundred billion neurons must remain intact.” This appears to overlook the possibility that the connectivity, while not intact, is still inferable from what remains. (By analogy, when a document is run through a paper shredder it is certainly no longer intact but might still be reconstructible from the fragments, particularly if the text alone is what we are interested in. As an example, Wikipedia reports in the article “Paper shredder”: “After the Iranian Revolution and the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, Iranians enlisted local carpet weavers who reconstructed the pieces by hand. The recovered documents would be later released by the Iranian regime in a series of books called ‘Documents from the US espionage Den.’ The US government subsequently improved its shredding techniques by adding pulverizing, pulping, and chemical decomposition protocols.” ) Of course it may be that many or most in the neuroscience community (and scientists more generally) will feel as Ken does—that the connectivity must be intact—but I think that position is questionable in view of the prospects for future tracking and analysis of structure at the molecular scale. (It is worth noting here that this tracking should be considerably finer-scale than what Ken’s proposal offers and would open the prospect of deductions of original structure that might be impossible using the anticipated techniques based on electron microscopy.)

Continuing in this vein, I have some disagreements with what is said in “Ending the Cold War,” even though I am certainly in favor of its overall aim of reconciling cryobiologists with cryonicists. One thing Ken suggests is that a “temporary moratorium” on cryopreservations might have been a reasonable policy back in the early days when procedures were admittedly very crude. Not so! If I or a loved one were dying I would want the best procedures available, in spite of all uncertainties, rather than just giving up. (And I think very many cryonicists will agree with me on this.) In particular I consider a straight freeze to be better than no preservation at all, by a wide margin, even though looking at the resulting neural rubble under the microscope tells me that it will be a big challenge for advanced future technology to untangle, if it can. But let the attempt be made! (I will note too that some of this “rubble” is caused by cells shrinking to small volume leaving large, ice-filled spaces in between, which is not the same as wholesale fragmentation.)

As a further thought, we don’t demand perfect recovery with clinical cases today for treatment to be worthwhile. The recovered patient may be quadriplegic, or have one or another neurological deficit, yet still feel (as others agree) that, in balance, their life is worthwhile and not wish it had ended. With cryonics cases arguably the worst deficit the patient is likely to suffer, in view of future medicine, is some amnesia, and even this would be amenable to amelioration through use of outside sources of information which could be used to reconstruct memories, language skills, or other capabilities. (Toward this end, Alcor members can store a banker’s box of records free of charge. Another possibility is to store a permanent “mindfile” using CyBeRev, a free service of the Terasem Foundation.) In short, there is reason for hope even with very crude methods of cryopreservation.

Again, though, I commend the effort Ken Hayworth has made in setting up a brain preservation prize, and hope it bears fruit.

I thank Hugh Hixon, Saul Kent, Ralph Merkle, Aschwin de Wolf, and Brian Wowk for their helpful advice and comments.