This claim is factually false. Cyronics organizations don’t use their customers’ bodies for research, and in general they don’t do much research of any kind.
You have clearly never read the Alcor case reports. Whether you view them with horror-at-the-ineptitude, or awe-at-the-learning-process, they’re clearly having all sorts of fun experimenting with the bodies.
Of course, whether this is useful research is up to you to decide, but it’s clear that the “preservation” side is still rather experimental. They do at least document all of it, too.
Eh, they’re trying multiple ways of preservation to see what works best. We can’t test which ones allow the best cyro-recoveries, but I don’t see how it’s de-facto not science.
I personally consider them shoddy amateurs due to some of the horror stories buried in there, but stating that it’s “factually false” that they do ANY research seems an overly strong claim.
Eh, they’re trying multiple ways of preservation to see what works best. We can’t test which ones allow the best cyro-recoveries, but I don’t see how it’s de-facto not science.
Science means:
Come up with a testable hypothesis
Design an experiment to test it
Perform the experiment
Statistically evaluate the outcome and determine if it is evidence in favor or against the hypothesis
Communicate the results to the scientific community
Science most definitely does not mean: “Let’s try something random today and see what happens”.
This is the core difference between scientific research and pre-scientific empiricism.
but stating that it’s “factually false” that they do ANY research seems an overly strong claim.
The don’t do any scientific research on their human corpses. They did some research on non-human animals in the past, but AFAIK, they didn’t publish much.
I agree that the human patient case studies are not a strong example of science, but think they should count at least as weak examples. The hypothesis being tested would be that certain solutions can be successfully introduced via perfusion (various methods tested) to minimize morphological and/or biological damage to the brain, and under what circumstances. The results can be measured e.g. afterwards by CT scans, measuring concentration of solutes in venous return, or microphone acoustic measurements of ice formation / cracking.
Arguably, the rabbit kidney studies of Fahy, Wowk, et al are motivated primarily by cryonics and only secondarily by the desire to transport lab-grown organs more effectively. (On the other hand, lab-grown organs are more promising candidates for this than donor organs, since they can be genetically and physically modified.)
One challenge to proposing animal research is that it could raise animal rights concerns, which could be exacerbated by cryonics’ delicate political position. One way around this would be to focus (for now) on testing models that do not involve reawakening the animal. For example, Peter Gouras recently proposed on Cryonet that the mammalian eye could serve as a good non-revival model. The animal would be euthanized, and the eye would be subsequently cannulated, perfused, and cooled. When re-warmed, measurements of the electrical effects of a light flash on the retina would be used to validate its functionality.
They did some research on non-human animals in the past, but AFAIK, they didn’t publish much.
You seem to concede that you were wrong and they have done some research, even if most of what they do isn’t. That was my sole objection, so I think we’re on the same page now >.>
This claim is factually false. Cyronics organizations don’t use their customers’ bodies for research, and in general they don’t do much research of any kind.
Note the present tense and the use of the adjective ‘much’ rather than ‘any’.
You have clearly never read the Alcor case reports. Whether you view them with horror-at-the-ineptitude, or awe-at-the-learning-process, they’re clearly having all sorts of fun experimenting with the bodies.
Of course, whether this is useful research is up to you to decide, but it’s clear that the “preservation” side is still rather experimental. They do at least document all of it, too.
That’s clearly anything but scientific research.
Eh, they’re trying multiple ways of preservation to see what works best. We can’t test which ones allow the best cyro-recoveries, but I don’t see how it’s de-facto not science.
I personally consider them shoddy amateurs due to some of the horror stories buried in there, but stating that it’s “factually false” that they do ANY research seems an overly strong claim.
Science means:
Come up with a testable hypothesis
Design an experiment to test it
Perform the experiment
Statistically evaluate the outcome and determine if it is evidence in favor or against the hypothesis
Communicate the results to the scientific community
Science most definitely does not mean: “Let’s try something random today and see what happens”.
This is the core difference between scientific research and pre-scientific empiricism.
The don’t do any scientific research on their human corpses. They did some research on non-human animals in the past, but AFAIK, they didn’t publish much.
I agree that the human patient case studies are not a strong example of science, but think they should count at least as weak examples. The hypothesis being tested would be that certain solutions can be successfully introduced via perfusion (various methods tested) to minimize morphological and/or biological damage to the brain, and under what circumstances. The results can be measured e.g. afterwards by CT scans, measuring concentration of solutes in venous return, or microphone acoustic measurements of ice formation / cracking.
Arguably, the rabbit kidney studies of Fahy, Wowk, et al are motivated primarily by cryonics and only secondarily by the desire to transport lab-grown organs more effectively. (On the other hand, lab-grown organs are more promising candidates for this than donor organs, since they can be genetically and physically modified.)
One challenge to proposing animal research is that it could raise animal rights concerns, which could be exacerbated by cryonics’ delicate political position. One way around this would be to focus (for now) on testing models that do not involve reawakening the animal. For example, Peter Gouras recently proposed on Cryonet that the mammalian eye could serve as a good non-revival model. The animal would be euthanized, and the eye would be subsequently cannulated, perfused, and cooled. When re-warmed, measurements of the electrical effects of a light flash on the retina would be used to validate its functionality.
That does seem to be how mathematics works, though.
You seem to concede that you were wrong and they have done some research, even if most of what they do isn’t. That was my sole objection, so I think we’re on the same page now >.>
Note the present tense and the use of the adjective ‘much’ rather than ‘any’.
shrugs We don’t disagree on any facet of reality, just the semantics of how to label it.