The Brain Preservation Technology Prize

Aubrey de Greyresponds to

Ben Bestpage 12

Member PRofile:

Hugh Hixonpage 14

The BrainPreservationTechnology

Prize page 5

ISSN 1054-4305

$9.95

2nd Quarter 2011 • Volume 32:2

Dendrites traced through a series of electronmicrographs of a chemically fixed and plastic

embedded piece of brain tissue.

þ Keep Alcor up-to-date about personal and medical changes.

þ Update your Alcor paperwork to reflect your current wishes.

þ Execute a cryonics-friendly Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care.

þ Wear your bracelet and talk to your friends and family about your desire to becryopreserved.

þ Ask your relatives to sign Affidavits stating that they will not interfere withyour cryopreservation.

þ Attend local cryonics meetings or start a local group yourself.

þ Contribute to Alcor’s operations and research.

Contact Alcor (1-877-462-5267)and let us know how we can assist you.

Improve Your Odds of a Good CryopreservationYou have your cryonics funding and contracts in place but have you considered othersteps you can take to prevent problems down the road?

Connect with Alcor members and supporters on our official Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/alcor.life.extension.foundationBecome a fan and encourage interested

friends, family members, and colleagues tosupport us too.

Alcor LifeExtension

Foundation is on

Take a look at theALCOR BLOG

http://www.alcor.org/blog/

Your source for news about:

• Cryonics technology• Cryopreservation cases• Television programs about cryonics• Speaking events and meetings• Employment opportunities

1www.alcor.org Cryonics/Second Quarter 2011

3 CEO UpdateAlcor CEO Max More onwhat’s happening at Alcorand the outlook thatinforms his job.

10 Some Thoughts on KenHayworth’s Proposal

11 Membership StatisticsAlcor membership is stillgrowing, albeit at a slowerpace.

17 2011 2nd QuarterReadiness UpdateWhat is going on in thearea of readiness andtraining?

18 Book Review: GlobalCatastrophic RisksMike Perry reviews anambitious collection ofarticles that is highlyrelevant to all Alcormembers.

Contents

12 Aubrey de Grey responds to Ben BestIn the previous issue Cryonics Institute President Ben Bestargued that some objectives of SENS cannot be consideredforms of damage repair and that SENS neglects DNA damageas one of the most important causes of aging. In this issue youcan read Aubrey’s extensive response.

14 Member Profile: Hugh HixonHugh Hixon is the longest serving cryonics staff member incryonics and an inexhaustible resource for all things technicalin cryonics. Chana de Wolf was able to interview Hugh for thisextensive member profile of Alcor’s Research Fellow.

2ND QUARTER 2011 • VOLUME 32:2

Au b r ey de

Grey

responds t

o

Ben Best

page 12

Member

P Ro file:

H u g h Hixon

page 14

The Brain

Preservatio

n

T e c hno lo g y

Prize page 5

ISSN 1054-4305

$9.95

2nd Quarter 2011 • Volume 32:2

Dendrites traced through a series of electron

micrographs of a chemically fixed and plastic

embedded piece of brain tissue.

Alcor member Ken Hayworth intro-duces the reader to the BrainPreservation Foundation and theprize they have established toencourage state of the art preserva-tion of the brain. The aim of thisprize is to answer the questionwhether cryonics or any otherpreservation method preserves theprecise pattern of synaptic connec-tivity in the brain. The authorexpects that an affirmative answerwill produce greater acceptance ofcryonics among scientists. MikePerry responds and clarifies theposition of the Editorial Board ofthe magazine.

COVER STORY: PAGE 5

Editorial BoardSaul Kent

Ralph Merkle, Ph.D.Brian Wowk, Ph.D.

EditorAschwin de Wolf

Art DirectorJill Grasse

Contributing WritersAaron Drake

Aubrey de Grey, Ph.DKenneth J. Hayworth, Ph.D

Max More, Ph.DMike Perry, Ph.D.Aschwin de WolfChana de Wolf

________________________________

Copyright 2011 by Alcor Life Extension Foundation

All rights reserved.Reproduction, in whole or part, without permission is prohibited.

Cryonics Magazine is published quarterly.

To subscribe to the paper edition: call 480.905.1906 x101

or visit the magazine website:http://www.alcor.org/magazine/

________________________________

Address correspondence to: Cryonics Magazine

7895 East Acoma Drive, Suite 110Scottsdale, Arizona 85260Phone: 480.905.1906 Toll free: 877.462.5267 Fax: 480.922.9027

Letters to the Editor welcome:[email protected]

Advertising inquiries: 480.905.1906 [email protected]

ISSN: 1054-4305

Visit us on the web at www.alcor.org

Alcor News Bloghttp://www.alcor.org/blog/

2 Cryonics/Second Quarter 2011 www.alcor.org

FROM THE EDITOR

Human cryopreservation is the most mature technology to preserve identity-criticalinformation in the brain but it is not the only feasible form of preservation. Brainstructure can be preserved either through the use of cold temperatures or through

the use of chemical fixation (or a combination of both). Although cryonics seems to have anumber of distinct advantages over chemopreservation, such as its suitability for both non-ischemic and ischemic patients (see my article in Cryonics 4th Quarter 2009), one couldargue that some of these advantages are simply the result of the fact that much more moneyand effort has been allocated to cryonics, as opposed to chemical preservation of the brain.What both approaches have in common is a reluctance to accept contemporary criteria con-cerning death. It is for this reason alone that advocates of cryonics have good reasons to besupportive of serious efforts in chemical brain preservation.

The cover article of this issue of Cryonics features a profile of the Brain PreservationFoundation written by Alcor member Ken Hayworth. Although Ken is somewhat partial tothe use of chemical fixation as a means of brain preservation, the non-profit foundation thathe and others have launched to promote brain preservation considers both approaches asserious candidates to preserve critical identity of the person. In his article for this magazinehe will discuss the objectives of the organization, its relevance to cryonics, and the BrainPreservation Technology Prize that has been established to encourage researchers to perfecttechnologies that demonstrate detailed preservation of every neuronal process and everysynaptic connection, as demonstrated by advanced electron microscopy technologies. Ken’sarticle is followed by a comment from Mike Perry who outlines where Alcor agrees anddisagrees with Ken’s perspective.

The reader will have to wait for the next issue for a number of exciting updates onresearch and development in cryonics but this issue has solid technical content too. Inaddition to the article about the Brain Preservation Technology Prize, we are honored topublish Aubrey de Grey’s response to Ben Best’s critical assessment of SENS in our previousissue. I am very pleased to offer this exchange to our readers because the development ofmature rejuvenation technologies is one of the conditions for cryonics to be meaningful forolder people. Expect more focus on aging and rejuvenation in future issues of this magazine.

Following my desire to feature more staff members and board members in themagazine, in this issue you can read an extensive member profile of Hugh Hixon. HughHixon’s official title is Research Fellow but it is hard to imagine any (technical) aspect ofcryonics that Hugh Hixon has not mastered. In particular, Hugh is the central person in theAlcor operating room to conduct and monitor cryoprotective perfusion. Hugh’s knowledgeand expertise in this area is of such importance that Alcor has increasingly recognized theurgent need to recruit and train more individuals to perform this crucial task. There are fewpeople of whom it can be said that they have dedicated their life to cryonics and Hugh Hixonis one of them. I strongly encourage you to read the profile of this remarkable and giftedindividual.

Due to space limitations and increased caseload, Alcor cannot publish all of its casereports in the magazine. I would like to draw your attention to the recent David Hayes casereport (http://www.alcor.org/Library/pdfs/casereportA1712DavidHayes.pdf). DavidHayes has participated in a number of Alcor cases himself and was my colleague atSuspended Animation, Inc. As this report will show, Dave was not able to benefit from thevery stabilization technologies that he was so familiar with. An inevitable autopsy and theholidays conspired to produce extensive delays which did not permit cryoprotectiveperfusion. Due to the legal efforts of Alcor, we were able to protect his brain from furtherinjury. Mike Perry has written a short addendum about what members can do to minimizethe risk of an (invasive) autopsy. If one needs only one reminder why we need to fight forimproved legal status of cryonics patients, read this case report.

Aschwin de Wolf


For the dullest among us, perfectionmay take the form of a simple vision:perhaps an other-worldly realm where

there is no struggle, no suffering, noconflict, only immaculate submission to aperfect higher power. (In a variation of thesame vision, this might include the provisionof numerous virgins, apparently without willor rights of their own.) Or perhaps it takesthe form of a different kind of higherpower: a worldly power—whether anembodiment of the people’s will (as classi-cally exemplified in Hegel’s and Marx’s viewof the State) or of the “pure race” or someother seductive fantasy. For the more intel-lectually sophisticated, it frequently takes theform of certainty in our own knowledge ofwhat is right and correct and proper andrational, accompanied by a sure belief thateveryone else is obviously a moron, or adupe, or evil.

Perfectionist thinking of this kindentails rejecting tradeoffs. It involves fixatingon a vision (sometimes arbitrary orungrounded) of how things ideally ought tobe while ignoring the costs of attempting toreach that ideal. Outside of pure mathe-matics and logic, perfection is not attainablein the real world. Even the flawless achieve-ment of one goal means giving up anothergoal of inferior but substantial value (theeconomists’ concept of “opportunity cost”).And achieving some aspects of a desiredgoal will mean giving up others. You maywant a car that gets excellent gas mileage, butthat will probably mean giving up the level ofperformance you hoped for. You may wantto delay having children until you’ve accu-mulated more wealth and experience, butyour fertility level may decline.

Tradeoffs clearly exist in cryonics,although you wouldn’t know it by listeningto most critics. We would all like cryonics to

be perfect, but we know that gains come at acost. We would like the costs of membershipdues and cryopreservation charges to belower. We would like the quality of cryo-preservations to be higher. We would likeeverything to be run by medical profes-sionals at low cost and with total commit-ment. We would like to be certain that a newemployee of a cryonic organization will notlie and steal and betray us.

Think about cryonics for a little whileand you will quickly compile a list oftradeoffs. For instance: better cryoprotec-tants such as M-22 cost more compared tocheaper glycerol; charter jets or air ambu-lances for fast transport of patients use upmoney that could be devoted to patient careor research or supporting operations; moremoney going into the patient care trust fundto strengthen it means less for continuingoperations; rapid access to major bloodvessels in transport causes damage but mayreduce ischemic time.

Some particularly vicious critics use per-fectionist thinking (either honestly-but-foolishly or dishonestly) to attack our feeswhile simultaneously blasting us for usingimperfect equipment and for not being fullystaffed with extremely expensive medicalprofessionals. They pretend to want toperfect cryonics by adding more govern-ment regulation, when they know that theadditional regulatory burdens could destroycryonics organizations. We already complywith numerous regulations, including OSHAand workplace regulations, local regulations,shipping regulations, and so on.

The way these critics brandish perfec-tionism is similar to the way critics of tech-nological progress and economic growthwield the “precautionary principle.” Theprecautionary principle commands us, inessence, not to allow the introduction of any

new technology or productive methodunless you can prove that it is perfectly safe.This principle – unlike my alternativeProactionary Principle – turns a blind eye totradeoffs while raising safety to the level ofan absolute value. [http://www.maxmore.com/perils.htm]

Critiquing the pernicious effects of per-fectionism should not be an excuse tolanguish in current conditions. Everytradeoff should be probed in an effort toovercome its terms. Any particular tradeoffmay be based on an assumption that nolonger holds. Factors that were once fixedmay become uncoupled due to new tech-nologies, techniques, and organization.Institutions take on a life of their own.Assumptions based in current reality can getbaked into the organizational culture. Whenconditions change, hardened assumptionsmay remain, the people in the organizationbeing blind to how tradeoffs have shifted.

I’m still quite new at the helm of Alcor,so I may be able to root out and challengeassumptions about tradeoffs that no longerapply. As time goes on, I may becomeincreasingly vulnerable to “hardening of theorthodoxies.” No perfect solution to thisexists. However, as a pancritical rationalist inboth philosophy and personality, I remainopen to alternative views and outside inputs.

So, yes, it’s important – no, crucial – tochallenge assumptions behind tradeoffs. Butneither can the real factors behind tradeoffsbe ignored. That only leads to demoraliza-tion and even disaster. Relentless criticism ofcurrent cryonics practice, based in a standardof impossible perfectionism, is more likelyto lead to despair than to improvement. Thebest alternative to perfectionism is continualimprovement, or what the Japanese callkaizen. My commitment to all Alcormembers for as long as I’m here, is cryo-

CEO UpdateBy Max More

kaizen. We will never achieve perfection, butwe will continually improve, learn frommistakes, improve our technology, ourprocesses, and our organization.

Member privacy:We hope to see youat the Suspended Animation conference inMay, in which Alcor will be participating.You should have received a brochure in themail on the event. One member asked howshe came to receive a brochure since she hadnot given SA her mailing address. In caseanyone else is wondering the same, pleasenote that Alcor did not and will not give outmember names and mailing addresses to other organ-izations. SA sent us the brochures and wemailed them out (a mailing paid for by SA).

Upgrades: We continue to build upAlcor’s capabilities. Top of my priority list forupgraded capabilities are standbys andpersonnel capable of carrying out cryoprotec-tive perfusion. Our primary post-transport per-fusionist, Hugh Hixon, has been the onlyperson who fully understood the operation ofour custom-built perfusion equipment. Thathas left us vulnerable in the event of his illness,absence (not a common occurrence), or –goodness forbid – his own cryopreservation.My thanks to Hugh for agreeing to train twopeople to bring up their existing knowledge andskills to the level needed to take over ifnecessary. Even if Hugh stays around for manyyears to come, it would be good to free himfrom some activities to preserve his time andenergy for the numerous other projects only heis able to pursue.

I have also been dissatisfied with thenumber of people who we can reliably callon for remote standbys. While we have localteams with people of varying levels oftraining and experience, it has only beenAaron Drake and Steve Graber who havegone out from Alcor Central on standbys.We have already added two additional peopleto the Scottsdale-based standby team, andwill continue to add to that number.

Earlier in this update, I emphasized thereality of tradeoffs. I also noted that,sometimes, existing tradeoffs can beovercome. Happily, we have recentlyimproved our capabilities (or are about to)while also saving money. For instance:Thanks primarily to Steve Graber andRandal Fry we have a newly-designedportable ice bath that (unlike the previousone) is within both size and weight limits forcommercial flights, saving us a substantialamount of money over time. We’ve alsopurchased a dozen drug pumps for use inthe field at a 90% discount (thanks Aaron!),

which make it easier to administer a coupleof meds that cannot be given all at once.

Many of you will fondly rememberprevious major pieces of Alcor literature,such as Reaching for Tomorrow. Fine as thoseoverview books were, they became outdated.The value of such comprehensive andclearly explained books remains. I’m sup-porting and will assist Mike Perry with hisproject to revise cryonics literature and makeit available to those intrigued about cryonics.

Documentation: Another project I’mpushing is to improve the degree of docu-mentation of crucial processes. This willmake it easier to train additional people andto provide existing people with clear proce-dures to follow. Among the processes whosedocumentation are to be checked, improved,or created are: construction of tubing packs;supply inventory maintenance; procurementof chemicals, including custom-madechemicals; solution preparation; mixing per-fusates; filling dewars; field blood washouts;cryoprotective perfusion; cryoprotectantperfusion equipment maintenance and trou-bleshooting; cryoprotectant perfusionequipment operation during cases; andcooldown and encapsulation operations.

Building Improvements: Visitors toAlcor cannot help but notice changes. One ofthe less obvious but important ones is that ORcleanliness has been improved by the additionof tacky mats by the door and skirts andweather-stripping around both doors. Moreobvious improvements include a much quieterkitchen fan; painting of chipped base boards(underway); painting walls in the conferenceroom (completed), entrance area (underway),and some offices (planned); moving SteveGraber to a renovated office nearer theworkshop, freeing his current office for thenew MCD position (done); and removal ofsome front cubicles and the creation of abetter reception area (planned). We are alsoreplacing the large number of framed picturesof patients in the conference room with adynamic electronic display using LCD frames.This not only looks much better but is ascalable solution as our patient populationgrows.

Alcor 104th patient: As you will haveread elsewhere, On Friday March 25, after afield washout by Suspended Animation,Alcor member A-2478 was transported bycharter flight to Scottsdale (most of the costof which had previously been covered by arelative), arriving shortly after midnight onSaturday March 26. Surgery and perfusionwere performed without major incident. The

patient has been transferred to long-termstorage at liquid nitrogen temperature. Thiswas my first time overseeing a cryo-preservation. As a result of the experience, Ihave added to the Emergency Checklist,created a more comprehensive EmergencyContact list, and developed a better under-standing of the indications and contra-indi-cations for field washout. We are also devel-oping more and better options for mortu-aries and charter flights.

Talks: As part of a renewed effort toinform and inspire new audiences aboutcryonics, I will be giving a talk at the May 14-15 Humanity+ @ Parsons conference, titled“Designing Death: Reframing and Refusingthe End of Life.” [http://humanityplus.org/conferences/parsons/] The conference—organized by today’s leading transhumanistorganization and a leading design school—features a rich roster of speakers and, wehope, an audience open to exploring thepossibilities for changing “death” from anunchosen end into a new beginning with afresh body and open future. As previouslymentioned, the following weekend I will berepresenting Alcor at the SuspendedAnimation conference. Then, inAugust/September, I’ll be speaking oncryonics at Aubrey de Grey’s fifth SENSconference in Cambridge, England.

Boosting growth through commu-nication: Alcor membership has beengrowing slowly in recent years (despite anuptick in April). It’s time to focus onboosting growth so that we can maintain andimprove our technical capabilities. I amstarting to do this through two measures.The first of these, already underway, is togive more talks on cryonics and Alcor topotentially interested and open groups. Inaddition to the three conference talks alreadyarranged for this year, we will be looking tosecure the services of a speaker’s agent orbureau. The second initiative is to make useof Web video by posting short (no morethan 5-minute) videos on YouTube and/orVimeo, answering common questions,refuting common objections, and addressingmisconceptions. We will also look into otherforms of targeted social media.

Visitors: On a Saturday in lateFebruary, we had some eminent and influen-tial visitors. Many of the staff came in tojoin in the tour. Many penetrating questionswere asked, and it seems very likely that wewill have new members as a result. (I hopewe will be able to reveal their identities atthat point.) n



The Brain PreservationTechnology Prize: A challenge to cryonicists, achallenge to scientists

By Kenneth J. Hayworth, PhD

My name is Kenneth Hayworth and Iam a PhD neuroscientist working ina university laboratory developing

automated electron imaging techniques. Theprimary focus of my research is tracingsynaptic connections in brain tissue at the ultra-structure level. I am also a long-time, albeitquite skeptical, member of Alcor.

Like many of my fellow materialist sci-entists I have no problem viewing the idea ofcryonics as merely a technical challenge:“Can a dying person be placed in a long-term static state to await future technologythat can revive and cure them?” As a neu-roscientist I have no problem stating theminimum conditions that such a static stateneeds to meet for it to allow possible futurerevival of the individual with memories andpersonality intact – the precise connectivityof the brain’s hundred billion neurons mustremain intact. I have discussed the idea ofcryonics with dozens of my fellow neurosci-entists over the years and this is the centralquestion that comes up again and again:

“Do current cryonic suspension techniques preservethe precise wiring of the brain’s neurons?”

The prevailing assumption among mycolleagues is that current techniques do not.It is for this reason my colleagues rejectcryonics as a legitimate medical practice.Their assumption is based mostly uponmedia hearsay from a few vocal cryobiolo-gists with an axe to grind against cryonics.To try to get a real answer to this question Isearched the available literature and inter-viewed cryonics researchers and practi-tioners. What I found was a few papersshowing selected electron micrographs of

distorted but recognizable neural tissue (forexample, Darwin et al. 1995, Lemler et al.2004). Although these reports are far morepromising than most scientists wouldexpect, they are still far from convincing tome and my colleagues in neuroscience.

It is often assumed that the onlyevidence that will persuade large numbers ofmainstream scientists to embrace cryonics isa demonstrated revival of a whole mammalafter being cooled to a temperature suffi-cient for long-term storage (an extremelydifficult technical goal which is likely stilldecades off). Such a demonstration ofrevival might be the only acceptable criterionfor the small cryobiology community (whois used to thinking of the brain as a ‘blackbox’ which either survives or does not), butthis is not necessarily a criterion neuro and

cognitive scientists have. For these brainscience specialists, who probably outnumbercryobiologists a hundred to one, the keycriterion is a demonstration that the preciseconnectivity of the brain’s 100 billionneurons is preserved by cryonic procedures.

To reemphasize, I believe that thousandsof neuro and cognitive scientists are ready andwilling to embrace cryopreservation as a legit-imate medical procedure if it can be shownthat cryonic procedures preserve the precisepattern of connectivity between neuronsacross the entire brain. What’s more,according to the top cryonics researchers Ihave interviewed, the current techniques maybe up to this task (e.g. Lemler et al. 2004).

The action item to the cryonicscommunity should be clear: Today’s bestavailable imaging technology should be used


to rigorously determine the quality ofneuronal circuit preservation within a cryopre-served brain, and the results should be widelypublicized so that every mainstream scientisthas an opportunity to see the true currentstate of cryopreservation for him or herself.

Brain Preservation TechnologyPrize

After considerable thought I came tothe conclusion that the best way to bringabout such a wide-reaching ‘scientific reeval-uation of cryonics’ is to put forward achallenge prize modeled after the inspira-

tional Ansari X Prize (for commercial spacetravel) and the skeptical ParanormalChallenge Prize offered by the James RandiEducational Foundation. A prize has thecrucial advantage of precisely defining thecriteria for success – a fact all cryonics skepticsshould eagerly embrace. Simultaneously aprize has the ability to explain to a wideaudience why the particular milestonechosen (in this case demonstration of brainpreservation at the electron microscopelevel) is on the critical path to a truly inspira-tional future goal (reanimation of apreserved individual). Put simply, a challengeprize will bring skeptics, advocates, scien-tists, and interested laypeople to the sametable for an impartial evaluation of cryo-preservation and a thoughtful conversationabout what we can reasonably expect toachieve over the next few years.

As a neuroscientist whose day job is tomap neural circuits, I know exactly what typeof evidence is needed to convince the scien-tific community that cryonics preserves theneural circuits encoding our uniquememories and personality. What is requiredis a systematic whole-brain survey with anelectron microscope. Recently I, along withmy colleagues John Smart and JacobDiMare, formed the Brain PreservationFoundation (BPF) to promote new scientificresearch in the field of whole brain preserva-tion for long-term static storage. The BPFhas announced the Brain PreservationTechnology Prize (purse currently at$106,000) for the first team to demonstratethat an entire large mammalian brain can bepreserved for long-term storage such thatthe connectivity between neurons remainsintact and traceable using today’s electronmicroscopic imaging techniques. A completeset of rules for the prize can be found onour BPF website www.brainpreservation.org.

A challenge to cryonicists –demonstrate the quality of yourproduct

This prize is being presented as achallenge to cryonics providers like Alcorand their research partners: “Demonstratethe quality of your product in a rigorous,independent, and open way to the scientificcommunity and to your customers.” TheBPF is hard at work raising funds topromote this prize and to help perform the

electron microscopic evaluation required,and we are recruiting a board of scientificadvisors and judges that will give the prizecredibility. This prize should be viewed as atremendous opportunity for the cryonicscommunity as a whole to publicly refute theprevailing negative stereotype of frostbittenand destroyed brain tissue. Even if thecurrent cryonic techniques are unable tomeet the rigorous requirements for winningthe prize, a ‘good showing’ should serve toreinvigorate interest in cryonics in the main-stream scientific community and in thegeneral public as well. It is my fervent hopethat Alcor and its research partners will riseto this challenge. As a long-time dues payingmember of Alcor, I believe it is Alcor’sresponsibility to do so to counter thecontinual claims in the press that theirservice is inadequate.

A challenge to scientists –develop alternatives to cryonics

The Brain Preservation Technology Prizeis also a challenge to the wider scientificcommunity. It has been almost 50 years sincethe professional cryobiology communitybriefly considered the possibility of putting aperson into indefinite suspended animation formedical applications and then quicklydismissed the possibility as impossible with thetechnology of the day. Incredible advanceshave been made in all areas of science andtechnology in the intervening decades. Is it stillimpossible to preserve a person in a long-termstatic state? If so, why? The Brain PreservationTechnology Prize is a challenge to this genera-tion of scientists to reevaluate what is possible,to move beyond the expectations of theirparents and grandparents and look at theproblem with a fresh perspective.

We at the BPF believe that one crucialpart of this fresh perspective is to considertrue alternatives to cryopreservationincluding room temperature chemicalfixation and plastic embedding of the brain.Such a ‘chemopreservation’ approach, whichhas exactly the same goal as cryonics (i.e.placing a dying person in a long-term staticstate to await future technology that canrevive them) was suggested decades ago(Olson 1988) but it has never been seriouslypursued. In chemopreservation, fixatives likeglutaraldehyde and osmium tetroxide areused to physically bind the molecular com-

Evaluation procedures for the BrainPreservation Technology Prize

The prize calls for a comprehen-sive statistical survey of the entirepreserved brain at electron microscope res-olution (~5 nanometers) to verify that theneuronal connectivity of the brain ispreserved throughout. Because imaging anentire brain at such high resolution wouldbe extremely costly and time consumingthe prize only calls for imaging the brain at1mm intervals and only calls for theseslices to be statically surveyed at mediumand high resolution looking for damage.The prize also calls for the extraction ofthree small sub volumes of the brain to besectioned at 50nm thickness and seriallyimaged to produce a 3D volume image.Such 3D volume images are the only wayto verify that synaptic connectivity is trulypreserved by a given technique.

Evaluation of a chemopreservedbrain embedded in a plastic block for long-term storage is straightforward - the blockis milled down at 1mm intervals and theresulting surfaces are polished flat with adiamond knife and scanned by electronmicroscope. Evaluation of a cryopreservedbrain is more challenging. One approachshown here is to warm the brain, wash outthe cryoprotectant solutions, and thenreperfuse the brain with fixative. The softbrain can then be sliced at 1mm intervalswith a vibrating knife and each resultingslab put through a staining and plasticembedding procedure and SEM imaged.This warm-fix-embed approach has beenused to evaluate the quality of cryopre-served brains previously. Another approach(which is technically more challenging)would involve leaving the cryopreservedbrain in a vitrified state and electronimaging milled and polished surfacesdirectly.


ponents in tissues together preventing decayreactions from occurring even at room tem-perature. Following application of fixatives,a solvent-based dehydration process is usedto remove all of the water within the tissueand replace it with a liquid polymer whichcan then be cured (Hayat 2000). The result isa hard plastic block containing a piece ofbrain tissue in which all the water has beenremoved from every nook and cranny ofintra and extracellular space and has beenreplaced with hardened plastic. Thestructure of the original neural circuits isperfectly preserved in this plastic matrixcreating, in essence, a perfect fossil whichpreserves every synaptic connection in greatdetail in a completely inert state that canremain for centuries unchanged even atroom temperature.

This chemopreservation process isroutinely used in laboratories around theworld to preserve small pieces of braintissue (typically less than one cubic mil-limeter in volume) for study under theelectron microscope. In fact much of whatwe know about the fine structure of neuronsand synapses is owed to this chemopreserva-tion process. Below is an electron micro-graph of a piece of mouse brain tissue thatwas preserved by this standard method inmy laboratory. A single synaptic connectionis shown highlighted in color and recon-structed in 3D.

This nanoscopic regime of synapticconnectivity is the level at which our uniquememories, skills, and personality traits arewritten. The target of the Brain PreservationTechnology Prize is to demonstrate asurgical technique (cryo, chemo, or anyother) capable of preserving an entirehuman brain with this level of fidelity.

Can this standard chemopreservationtechnique be applied to an entire humanbrain? Not without modification. Currentprotocols call for simply immersing thesmall pieces of tissue in the chemicalfixatives. Slow diffusion of thesechemicals puts a strict limit on the volumeof tissue that can be preserved by such animmersion technique; however, if thetechnique is adapted to instead perfusethese chemicals directly through thebrain’s vascular network an entire brainshould be able to be preserved with thesame fidelity. I have written a review

(available on the BPF website) of theexisting literature on such whole brainchemical perfusion; the review starts withexperiments in the 1960’s showing that awhole brain can be perfusion fixed withosmium tetroxide (Palay 1962). I concludein that review that whole brain chemicalfixation and plastic embedding isabsolutely possible with today’s tech-nology, it is only a matter of refining theprotocols. I know of at least two laborato-ries that are currently trying to developthese whole brain chemical fixation andplastic embedding protocols for themouse, and several other researchers havecontacted me (as a direct consequence ofthe Brain Preservation Technology Prizeannouncement) who are interested indeveloping these techniques for demon-stration on a large mammal.

Putting an end to the ‘Cold War’For the last forty years a very public war

has been fought between the advocates ofcryonics and professional cryobiologists.This is despite the fact that there has alwaysbeen considerable overlap between thesegroups. In 1991 Mike Darwin wrote anexcellent article entitled “COLD WAR: TheConflict Between Cryonicists andCryobiologists” giving a detailed history ofthe origins of this conflict. He concludedthat it had little to do with the science ofcryopreservation and much more to do witha clash of ideals between a few prominentindividuals. This clash however snowballedinto an ugly drawn out war because of theperceived need of the cryobiologists to vig-orously distance themselves from macabremedia reporting of some of the earliestattempts at human cryopreservation. Instead

Automatic tape collection mechanism and ultramicrotome (ATUM) used to section plastic-embedded brain tissue at 30 nanometer thickness.

_______________________________________________________________________________


of calling for a temporary halt to humancryopreservations so that a minimumacceptable protocol could be outlined, a fewprominent cryobiologists instead went onthe offensive claiming that any preservationattempt on a human was futile and should bebanned. Cryonicists, indignant that theirright to pursue a means of personal survivalwas being trampled, fought back andcontinued to perform amateur preservationsthat all parties today would agree were nextto hopeless. Cryobiologists in turn began topurge cryonics advocates from their profes-sional ranks and summarily reject theirpapers and grant applications. The ensuingdecades have only entrenched this mutualanimosity.

As Mike Darwin so aptly points out, thiswar has next to destroyed both sides in theconflict. The field of cryobiology, originallyglamorized in the public eye as pursuing thegoal of reversible suspended animation foremergency medicine and space travel (think ofthe movie 2001: A Space Odyssey), haswithered - its public stand against cryonics wassynonymous with a dampening of enthusiasmfor these advanced applications. The practice ofcryonics, although it has managed to advancesignificantly in the intervening years, has paidan even higher price. There might have beendozens of professional, well-funded researchlabs competing with each other over theprevious decades to perfect the art of humancryopreservation. The public rejection by pro-fessional cryobiologists directly prevented thisfrom happening. If things had been differentwe could reasonably expect that by now everyhospital would have a professional cryo-

preservation team on call when needed, readyto perform a regulated emergency preservationprocedure known to be of high quality. Insteadwe have only a few unregulated companies per-petually on the brink of bankruptcy offeringcryopreservation services of unknown qualityunder legal circumstances that preclude optimalpreservation.

It is time to put an end to this ‘ColdWar’, and I believe the Brain PreservationTechnology Prize is the perfect vehicle to dothis. The traditional framing of the cryonicsdebate within the mainstream scientificcommunity has always been set by the cry-obiologists: “Until a person can be revivedfrom cryonic suspension the entire practiceshould be viewed as quack medicine; afterall, the person is already dead.” The BrainPreservation Technology Prize sidesteps thistired old debate by instead directly framingcryonics relative to the goals of the neuro-science community: “Can a cryonic (orother) preservation technique preserve theprecise pattern of synaptic connectivity inthe brain that is known by modern neuro-science to be the substrate for memory andindividuality?”

The mainstream neuroscience community(much larger, more respected, and betterfunded than the cryobiology community everwas) retains high aspirations about its future

success. Recent decades have seen tremendousstrides in our theoretical understanding of thebrain at the molecular, synaptic, neuronal,neural circuit, and systems levels. Theseadvances in our theoretical understanding havebeen accompanied by an incredible sophistica-tion in our ability to image the brain even at theultimate level of tracing individual synapticcircuits. New automated electron imaging tech-niques (e.g. Denk & Horstmann 2004, Knott etal. 2008) have been invented within the lastseven years which can image a chemically fixedand plastic embedded piece of brain tissue withnanometer resolution such that all synapticconnections between neurons within a smallblock can be determined with certainty. In fact,a recent paper in the journal Nature used oneof these automated electron imaging tech-niques to reconstruct the precise neuron-to-neuron wiring of cells in a retina and comparethat wiring diagram to recordings of theneurons’ functioning while alive (Briggman etal. 2011). Conclusion: the neurons’ originalfunctions could be predicted based upon theirtraced connectivity to other neurons in theplastic block.

As a result of these technology devel-opments, it is now quite acceptable amongneuroscientists to discuss the future possi-bility of mapping an entire human brain atthe synapse level (Kasthuri & Lichtman

Silicon wafer (100mm wide) holding ultrathinbrain sections ready for scanning electron

microscope imaging. ______________________________________

Scanning electron microscope which can automatically image a complete wafer of ultrathinsections producing volume images with resolutio ns of 5x5x30 nanometers – sufficient to trace

the finest neuronal processes and synaptic connections. _______________________________________________________________________________


2007) and the future possibility of simu-lating an entire brain (Markram 2006). Inprivate discussions I have had with dozensof neuroscientists over the years, I havefound that most readily agree that in thefuture we will create fully artificial brainsthat will be intelligent and conscious in ahuman way. Many agree that we will even-tually be able to upload individual humanminds into computers by scanning theirbrain circuitry.

Given their progressive attitude towardthe future, I have no doubt that the targetgoal laid out in the Brain PreservationTechnology Prize will be readily embracedby researchers in the neuro and cognitivesciences. Once the first teams begin to showreal progress toward winning the prize, Ifully expect to see a watershed change inattitude toward the idea of cryonics withinthe scientific community as a whole – at thispoint the ‘Cold War’ will be ended and a newera of cooperation between the scientificcommunity and the cryonics community willhave begun. n

Scanning electron microscope image of a small piece of brain tissue that was chemically fixedand plastic embedded and then sectioned on the ATUM. A single synapse is highlighted incolor and rendered in 3D after tracing through a stack of about 100 serial images. Everyhuman brain has trillions of such connections. Modern neuroscience is founded on thepremise that the precise pattern of connections between our neurons (our ‘connectome’)

encodes all of our memories, skills, and personality traits . Our unique connectome is thus astatic representation of our individuality. The Brain Preservation Technology Prize requires thata competing team prove that the connectome has been preserved across the entire brain.

_______________________________________________________________________________

References

Briggman, K. L., Helmstaedter, M., Denk, W. (2011). Wiring specificity in the direction-selec-tivity circuit of the mammalian retina. Nature, vol. 471 p183-188.

Darwin, M. (1991). “Cold War: The Conflict Between Cryonicists and Cryobiologists.”Cryonics, June 1991.

Darwin, M., Russell, S., Wakfer, P., Wood, L., Wood, C. (1995). Effect of HumanCryopreservation Protocol on the Ultrastructure of the Canine Brain. BPI Tech Brief 16, May31, 1995.

Denk, W., Horstmann, H. (2004). Serial block-face scanning electron microscopy to recon-struct three-dimensional tissue nanostructure. PLoS Biology, vol. 2(11): e329

Hayat, M.A. (2000). Principles and Techniques of Electron Microscopy BiologicalApplications. Fourth Edition. Cambridge University Press.

Kasthuri, N., Lichtman, .W. (2007). The rise of the ‘projectome’. Nature Methods, vol. 4p307-308.

Knott, G., Marchman, H., Wall, D., Lich, B. (2008). Serial Section Scanning ElectronMicroscopy of Adult Brain Tissue Using Focused Ion Beam Milling. The Journal ofNeuroscience, vol. 28 (12) p2959-2964.

Lemler, J., Harris, S.B., Platt, C., Huffman, T. (2004). The Arrest of Biological Time as aBridge to Engineered Negligible Senescence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,vol. 1019 p559-563.

Markram, H. (2006). The Blue Brain Project. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. vol. 7, p153-160.

Olson, C.B. (1988). A Possible Cure for Death. Medical Hypothesis, vol. 26 p77-84.

Palay, S. L., McGee-Russell, S. M., Gordon, S., Grillo, M. A. (1962). Fixation of neuraltissues for electron microscopy by perfusion with solutions of osmium tetroxide. Journal ofCell Biology, vol. 12 p385-410.

Kenneth J. Hayworth, PhD

Kenneth Hayworth is president andco-founder of the Brain PreservationFoundation. He is currently a post-doctoral researcher at HarvardUniversity. Hayworth is co-inventor ofthe Tape-to-SEM process for high-throughput volume imaging of neuralcircuits at the nanometer scale andhe designed and built severalautomated machines to implementthis process. Hayworth received aPhD in Neuroscience from theUniversity of Southern California forresearch into how the human visualsystem encodes spatial relationsamong objects.

About theAuthor


Ithink it is commendable that KenHayworth is offering a prize for demon-strated, near-perfect brain preservation

at the synaptic level where identity-criticalstructure appears to be seated. I’m sure itwill aid the cryonics movement, both at thetechnical level and publicity-wise.Neuroscientists may then have a morefavorable attitude toward cryonics (orwhatever preservation approach is foundeffective) and some may be persuaded tosupport cryonics, along with medical profes-sionals and scientists more generally and,following their lead, the public at large.

Here though I have to inject a firmdoubt that it will start a major wave ofsignups among any of these groups, eventhe neuroscientists themselves. Experienceof some decades suggests that people havedeep-seated emotional reasons for rejectingcryonics, that lie within the subconsciousand are generally not fully understood.Sometimes, for instance, they will cite thecost of the procedure as their reason for notmaking the arrangements, and steadfastlymaintain this position as if it were theprimary deterrent. But if you then make anoffer to bear the cost yourself or otherwiseraise the funding, they simply switch toanother reason to decline. (Or, as in one caseI know of who is now buried, exercise a“pocket veto” by not further commenting.)In general the arguments given againstchoosing cryonics, if not focusing stronglyon religious issues, seem to be of a straw-man character that obscures deeper psycho-logical impediments. Such obstacles will only

be overcome by particularly strong evidence.At minimum, perhaps it would take the suc-cessful, repeatable resuscitation of a cryop-reserved organ such as a heart or kidney,which could then be used to save the life ofa patient. Of course I would be glad to beproved wrong but that’s the way mattersappear to stand. And of course I think theeffort is worth it even if only a modest ornonexistent uptick in signups results, giventhe expected technical advances andattendant favorable publicity. (Indeed,cryonics signups could be increased substan-tially and greatly benefit the movement evenif the effects on the population as a wholewere minuscule.)

I also want to comment about theoverall tone of Ken’s proposal: optimistic inimportant ways, but sometimes more pes-simistic than it should be. He makes a goodcase that the basic idea of cryonics is soundand ought to be pursued. And, of course, wedo want better procedures and it would begood to have a mechanism in place toreward a successful effort to find one. Suchan effort is certainly warranted—our proce-dures are not as good as we’d like and wedon’t expect they will be anytime soon. I willalso here note my heartfelt approval forKen’s interest in finding a viable, low-costalternative to expensive cryopreservation.“Improvement” can have a financial as wellas a technical dimension, at least for themany of us who are not wealthy.

Ken, on the other hand, is pessimisticabout present and past protocols for cryo-preservation (though in fact an Alcor

member of long standing, as he informs us).Some of it I think is unwarranted. Forexample, he says, “As a neuroscientist I haveno problem stating the minimum conditionsthat [cryopreservation] needs to meet for itto allow possible future revival of the indi-vidual with memories and personality intact– the precise connectivity of the brain’shundred billion neurons must remainintact.” This appears to overlook the possi-bility that the connectivity, while not intact,is still inferable from what remains. (Byanalogy, when a document is run through apaper shredder it is certainly no longer intactbut might still be reconstructible from thefragments, particularly if the text alone iswhat we are interested in. As an example,Wikipedia reports in the article “Papershredder”: “After the Iranian Revolution andthe takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehranin 1979, Iranians enlisted local carpetweavers who reconstructed the pieces byhand. The recovered documents would belater released by the Iranian regime in aseries of books called ‘Documents from theUS espionage Den.’ The US governmentsubsequently improved its shredding tech-niques by adding pulverizing, pulping, andchemical decomposition protocols.” ) Ofcourse it may be that many or most in theneuroscience community (and scientistsmore generally) will feel as Ken does—thatthe connectivity must be intact—but I thinkthat position is questionable in view of theprospects for future tracking and analysis ofstructure at the molecular scale. (It is worthnoting here that this tracking should be con-

Some Thoughts on Ken Hayworth’s ProposalBy Mike Perry


siderably finer-scale than what Ken’sproposal offers and would open theprospect of deductions of original structurethat might be impossible using the antici-pated techniques based on electronmicroscopy.)

Continuing in this vein, I have some dis-agreements with what is said in “Ending theCold War,” even though I am certainly infavor of its overall aim of reconciling cry-obiologists with cryonicists. One thing Kensuggests is that a “temporary moratorium”on cryopreservations might have been a rea-sonable policy back in the early days whenprocedures were admittedly very crude. Notso! If I or a loved one were dying I wouldwant the best procedures available, in spiteof all uncertainties, rather than just givingup. (And I think very many cryonicists willagree with me on this.) In particular Iconsider a straight freeze to be better thanno preservation at all, by a wide margin, eventhough looking at the resulting neural rubble

under the microscope tells me that it will bea big challenge for advanced future tech-nology to untangle, if it can. But let theattempt be made! (I will note too that someof this “rubble” is caused by cells shrinkingto small volume leaving large, ice-filledspaces in between, which is not the same aswholesale fragmentation.)

As a further thought, we don’t demandperfect recovery with clinical cases today fortreatment to be worthwhile. The recoveredpatient may be quadriplegic, or have one oranother neurological deficit, yet still feel (asothers agree) that, in balance, their life isworthwhile and not wish it had ended. Withcryonics cases arguably the worst deficit thepatient is likely to suffer, in view of futuremedicine, is some amnesia, and even thiswould be amenable to amelioration throughuse of outside sources of information whichcould be used to reconstruct memories,language skills, or other capabilities. (Towardthis end, Alcor members can store a banker’s

box of records free of charge. Another pos-sibility is to store a permanent “mindfile”using CyBeRev, a free service of theTerasem Foundation.) In short, there isreason for hope even with very crudemethods of cryopreservation.

Again, though, I commend the effortKen Hayworth has made in setting up abrain preservation prize, and hope it bearsfruit. n

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

advice and comments.

On March 31, 2011, Alcor had935 members on its EmergencyResponsibility List. Eighteen (18)memberships were approvedduring the first three months of2011, three (3) membershipswere reinstated, seventeen (17)memberships were cancelledand one (1) member was cryop-reserved. Overall, there was anet gain of five (5) members thismonth.

Membership Statistics


SENS: A Reply to Ben BestBy Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey

SENS, my proposal for combating agingwith regenerative medicine, was firstformulated in 2000 and first published

in 2002 [1]. In 2005 and 2006, the first scien-tific critiques of SENS [2,3] appeared thatwere worthy of the name – in other words,that focused squarely on the scientific detailsof SENS rather than speaking in generalities.Both featured many profound flaws, asoutlined in my replies [4,5], but I was underno illusions that this meant that SENS willdefinitely work. Accordingly, it has been asource of disappointment to me that the sub-sequent five years have not seen better-informed and better-founded critiques, eventhough an undercurrent of intuitivepessimism about SENS undoubtedlysurvives. I am therefore gratified thatCryonics Institute CEO Ben Best haspublished a careful analysis of what he sees asdeficiencies in SENS, in the previous issue ofCRYONICS [6].

Ben’s first criticism is a terminologicalone, and to a large extent I accept it.Specifically, he disputes the legitimacy ofdescribing the SENS approaches tocombating mutations, whether mitochondrialor nuclear, as “damage repair.” In the case ofmitochondrial mutations I think it is justabout reasonable to claim that the SENSapproach is indeed damage repair: theapproach is to render such mutationsharmless by inserting suitably modifiedcopies of the relevant genes into the nuclearDNA, and the goal is to restore function tomitochondria that have lost the ability tometabolise oxygen because of mutations [7].In other words, this intervention will indeedrepair dysfunctional mitochondria, in thesense of restoring their function. However, Iconcede that its main impact will be pre-emption of dysfunction more than repair,since the genes will mostly be inserted intocells whose mitochondria are not yet mutated.Similarly, the approach that SENS highlightsfor combating the effects of nuclear

mutations consists of repairing and/or pre-empting those effects, rather than repairingthe mutations themselves. In this case theintervention entails eliminating cells that havebecome “death-resistant” (typically as a resultof nuclear DNA damage), replacing cells thathave died (again typically as a result of nuclearDNA damage) and have not been automati-cally replaced by division of other cells, andmost importantly eliminating the genes thatallow rare cells which mutate into a “quies-cence-resistant” state to divide indefinitely astumours [8]. This last item is clearly mostly acase of pre-emption rather than bona fiderepair: it is repair only to the extent that cellswhich are already cancerous or pre-cancerouscan be eliminated by the apoptosis that resultsfrom further cell division following thetherapy.

Therefore, my only objection to thiscriticism is Ben’s characterisation of it as “aprocrustean attempt to force two strategiesinto a model purporting to only be concernedwith damage and repair.” It is not the modelitself that purports to revolve around damageand repair, but merely the sound-bite descrip-tion of that model. I know that both Ben andour readers appreciate that painfully approxi-mate terminology is a sad necessity in thequest to communicate our message to thosewhose attention has not yet been gripped bythe understanding that the defeat of aging ishumanity’s most important mission.Accordingly I am pleased that Ben took thetrouble to stress that this criticism of SENS isminor.

In the remainder of what follows,therefore, I shall address the more substantiveissues that Ben raises, and explain why I feelthat they do not stand up to detailed scrutiny.

First of all, Ben focuses on nuclearDNA damage that does not fall under thethree categories addressed by aspects ofSENS (see above). I will hereafter refer tosuch damage as “non-specific.” Before con-tinuing, I should mention another termino-

logical issue – one which does not lead to anydispute between Ben and myself, but whichmay confuse readers. Ben very reasonablyuses the term “DNA damage” in the way thatit is customarily used by those who work onDNA repair; however, it is important toclarify, which Ben indirectly does but onlylater on in his article, that this usage is unfor-tunately at variance with the way in which Iuse the term “damage” when describingSENS. Specifically, “damage” in the DNArepair literature refers to molecular changesthat the cell possesses machinery to repair,such as double-strand breaks, whereas inSENS, “damage” denotes precisely thechanges that the cell cannot repair, such asmutations. Accordingly, in what follows Ishall studiously avoid using the term“damage” at all, and instead refer to“mutations” (which should be understood toinclude epimutations, explained below) and“lesions” (a term also commonly used in theDNA repair literature to refer to damage thatis amenable to repair). Thus, a lesion is whathappens to DNA as a result of free radicalattack and such like, and a mutation is whathappens to DNA when the cell’s machineryfails to repair a lesion correctly but instead“repairs” it wrongly.

OK, so to Ben’s concern. In a nutshell,he appeals to the “coincidence” that varioussyndromes which exhibit many facets ofnormal age-related ill-health at an abnormallyearly age are caused by congenital defects inDNA repair. I have two responses to this.First, Ben is implying that because breakingsome process accelerates lots of aspects ofaging, therefore an intervention that does notimprove that process would fail to deliverpostponement of aging. This is only true ifthe proposed means to postpone aging leavesuntouched key pathways in the mechanism bywhich imperfections in the process inquestion mediate accelerated aging. Forexample, if the various progerias caused bydefects in DNA repair and maintenance


occur because the resulting lesions and/ormutations cause premature accumulation ofdeath-resistant cells, and/or premature loss ofvital cells (most notably stem cells), and/orpremature emergence of cancer, the claimthat SENS will work is not challenged,because SENS addresses those things. I amnot aware of evidence against this scenario –and, indeed, Ben highlights evidence thatthese are indeed mechanisms underlying theprogerias. Second, Ben notes that the doublestrand break repair mechanism normallydefective in progerias is homologous recom-bination, even though the mechanism agreedto be the main source of mutations is non-homologous end-joining. There is a clear dis-connect there.

Ben goes on to acknowledge that SENSincorporates elimination of death-resistantcells and replacement of lost cells, but thenhe makes the erroneous claim that suchapproaches cannot be applied to non-dividing cells such as neurons. In organssuch as the heart, it is critical that new cellsshould integrate properly and form theappropriate junctions with existing cells, butthe burgeoning field of heart repair usingstem cells is founded on the belief that thatis by no means a fanciful goal. Ben correctlyhighlights the brain as the organ in whichthis replacement-associated integration isthe most critical, but I believe he is wrong inhis belief that the replacement – slowreplacement, to be sure, but replacementnonetheless – of lost neurons necessitates aloss of personal identity, memory etc.Rather, my view is that the distributed, holo-graphic structure of memory, combinedwith the fact that recalling a memory auto-matically reinforces it, allows for theretention of all memories and other aspectsof personality that are significant enough tocare about, even if all neurons were progres-sively replaced over a very long life.

Ben then cites evidence not relating toprogerias that he claims also demonstrates akey role of non-specific mutations. However,here he confuses lesions with mutations. Henotes that lesions are more abundant in oldrats than young, and that this is probably dueto lower activity of repair machinery, which inturn probably results from lower energy avail-ability. He infers, and I see no reason todisagree, that this drives an age-related accel-eration of the accumulation of mutations.But what he fails to show is that the absoluteabundance of mutations, even taking intoaccount this acceleration, rises to anywherenear the level that would be needed in order

for non-specific mutations to contribute toill-health. Moreover, he overlooks theessential point that this acceleration applieswith equal force to mutations of the threecategories that SENS obviates. As I havenoted in print in the past, it may be preciselythe risk of ill-health posed by those mutations(specifically those causing quiescence-resist-ance, i.e. cancer) that has driven evolution tomake our natural DNA repair and mainte-nance machinery as effective as it is [9].

Finally, Ben notes that even though theremay be evolutionary arguments (see above) tobe optimistic that non-specific mutations areof no importance in aging, it would be muchbetter if we had definitive data on thequestion. Here I agree wholeheartedly – and Ihave put my (or, to be more precise, SENSFoundation’s) money where my mouth is. JanVijg’s group has demonstrated, in manypapers over the past decade or more, thatnuclear mutation load accumulates duringdevelopment in every mouse tissue butduring adulthood only in a few, and not at allin the cerebral cortex [10]. If mutations donot accumulate, then their accumulationdefinitively cannot contribute to aging. Ittherefore remains only to examine whethertypes of irreparable DNA damage notassayed in Vijg’s studies may accumulate.There are such types: in particular, there areepimutations, i.e. random and unregulatedchanges not to the DNA sequence but to the“decorations” that determine which genes agiven cell transcribes (forming RNA andthence proteins) and which it does not. Whilethe evolutionary logic I have provided appliesequally to epimutations as to mutations, nodirect evidence of the form available formutations has been forthcoming.

Therefore, in recognition that the evolu-tionary arguments noted above do not giveadequate peace of mind for this criticalpurpose, SENS Foundation has for the pasttwo years been funding a project in Vijg’s labto explore exactly this. The most challengingaspect of the project, at its outset, was devel-opment of the necessary technique for deter-mining the epigenetic state of single cells,starting from pre-existing techniques thatneeded to pool 1000 or more cells. I amdelighted to report that this has now beenachieved (as will be described in a forth-coming publication), so we are now on theverge of answering this question. Of course,if epimutations are indeed found to accumu-late in the cortex during adulthood, it willremain to determine whether the extent ofthat accumulation is sufficient to contribute

to aging – but if they do not, we can truly resteasy in the knowledge that the three SENSstrands targeted at the cellular consequencesof mutations (and epimutations), once suc-cessful, will allow us to neglect suchmutations in the course of our attempt topostpone age-related ill-health, at least untilwe have lived a very great deal longer thananyone lives at present. n

References

1. de Grey ADNJ, Ames BN, Andersen JK,Bartke A, Campisi J, Heward CB, McCarterRJM, Stock G. Time to talk SENS: critiquingthe immutability of human aging. AnnalsNY Acad Sci 2002; 959:452-462.

2. Warner H, Anderson J, Austad S, BergaminiE, Bredesen D, Butler R, Carnes BA, ClarkBF, Cristofalo V, Faulkner J, Guarente L,Harrison DE, Kirkwood T, Lithgow G,Martin G, Masoro E, Melov S, Miller RA,Olshansky SJ, Partridge L, Pereira-Smith O,Perls T, Richardson A, Smith J, von ZglinickiT, Wang E, Wei JY, Williams TF. Science factand the SENS agenda. What can we rea-sonably expect from ageing research?EMBO Rep 2005;6(11):1006-1008.

3. Estep P, Kaeberlein M, Kapahi P, KennedyBK, Lithgow GJ, Martin GM, Melov S,Powers RW, Tissenbaum HA. Life extensionpseudoscience and the SENS plan. MITTechnology Review, 2006. http://www.tech-nologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal.pdf

4. de Grey ADNJ. Like it or not, life extensionresearch extends beyond biogerontology.EMBO Reports 2005; 6(11):1000.

5. de Grey ADNJ. Rebuttal of Estep et al. sub-mission by Aubrey de Grey. MITTechnology Review, 2006. http://www.tech-nologyreview.com/sens/docs/estepetal_rebuttal.pdf

6. Best B. Deficiencies in the SENS approachto rejuvenation. Cryonics 2011;32(1):8-9.

7. de Grey ADNJ. Mitochondrial genetherapy: an arena for the biomedical use ofinteins. Trends Biotechnol 2000; 18(9):394-399.

8. de Grey ADNJ, Campbell FC, Dokal I,Fairbairn LJ, Graham GJ, Jahoda CAB,Porter ACG. Total deletion of in vivotelomere elongation capacity: an ambitiousbut possibly ultimate cure for all age-related human cancers. Annals NY AcadSci 2004; 1019:147-170.

9. de Grey ADNJ. Protagonistic pleiotropy:why cancer may be the only pathogeniceffect of accumulating nuclear mutationsand epimutations in aging. Mech AgeingDev 2007; 128(7-8):456-459.

10. Vijg, J., Dollé, M.E., 2002. Large genomerearrangements as a primary cause ofaging. Mech. Ageing Dev. 123, 907-915.


MemberProfile:

Hugh Hixon

By Chana de Wolf

If you have been an Alcor member foran appreciable amount of time you havemost likely heard of, or even met, Hugh

Hixon. Hugh, who serves as ResearchFellow at Alcor, has been employed at theorganization since 1983 and is responsiblefor several of the technical developmentsthat Alcor utilizes in the field and the ORduring cryopreservation cases. Hugh is thequintessential ‘tinkerer’ – the guy who hasbeen around longer than anyone else, knowsthe most about cryonics technologies, andwho can utilize that breadth of experienceand knowledge to improve both theprocesses and equipment involved incarrying out a case and in maintainingpatients in long-term storage.

Over the years, Hugh has become anintegral part of Alcor operations. Hisinvolvement in everything from solutionpreparation to dewar maintenance to doingcryoprotective perfusions reflects hisinterest in every aspect of the field. Indeed,whenever there has been a scientific ortechnical void at Alcor, Hugh has done hisbest to fill it. In speaking with him, it isapparent that he views cryonics not just as apart of his life, but as his life. And with goodreason: Hugh’s history is practically one andthe same with Alcor history.

Of course, Hugh’s life didn’t start withcryonics. Born in 1942 in Long Beach, CA, hegrew up in the area and became interested inchemistry at a young age, primarily due to afascination with explosives. In high school heread most of an industrial chemistry textbook,which described such processes as the produc-tion of carborundum (silicon carbide) jewelryby exposing a mixture of sand and charcoal toextremely high temperatures (2500 - 3000°C)inside of an industrial furnace.

The seeds of intrigue planted, Hughextended his quest for chemical knowledgeat the University of Redlands, where heobtained a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry.Working for only a short while after gradua-tion, he then received a draft notice and“escaped into the Air Force” where he was amunitions officer. Jumping from Lackland,TX, to Denver, CO, to Las Vegas, NV, Hughfulfilled his duties in aerospace munitions,learning much about thermonuclearweapons, but primarily performing adminis-trative duties such as managing the bombdump in Las Vegas.

Following the Pueblo incident in SouthKorea, Hugh was sent to the Taegu, Korea,Air Force station for 9 months, then wentback to the U.S. at Cannon Air Force base inClovis, NM, for 2.5 years before leaving the

service. “It was interesting work,” heexplains, “but ultimately, I didn’t have quitethe attention to detail that you need to haveas an officer.”

Picking up where he left off, Hugh wentback to school, entering the graduateprogram in biochemistry at California StateUniversity at Long Beach in 1973. “I becamea tenured graduate student,” Hugh jokes. “Ispent over a decade in grad school, anddidn’t obtain my Master’s degree in bio-chemistry until 1983.” Spending such a longtime in school allowed Hugh to explore hisinterests in depth and to take a lot of addi-tional classes that a biochemist wouldn’tnormally take, including advanced inorganicchemistry, organic catalysis, electrochem-istry, solvation chemistry and internalchemical reactions.

During that time, around 1977, Hugh’scollege roommate, Laurence Gale, intro-duced him to cryonics. Fred and LindaChamberlain, founders of Alcor, hadrecruited Laurence into Alcor after meetinghim at a series of Libertarian/Randianseminars, and Laurence sought Hugh’s helpwith some problems Alcor was having at thetime. By 1978, Hugh had participated in hisfirst cryopreservation; he was becomingmore involved in cryonics every day.

Hugh Hixon, Research Fellow, has worked at Alcor since1983. He has devoted more than half of his life to cryonics.___________________________________________________


It wasn’t long before some cryonicists,Thomas Donaldson in particular, werestumping for research. Jerry Leaf, whoworked in the Department of ThoracicSurgery at UCLA, heeded the call, bringingsurgical experience and perfusion tech-nology to cryonics. Hugh met Jerry and theyperformed their first case together, flying thepatient from New York to California forperfusion-based cryoprotection. It was alarge leap forward of technical capability incryonics.

In 1982, cryonics activist and pioneerMike Darwin moved his Indianapolis basedcryonics operation out to California andmerged with Jerry Leaf ’s company Cryovita,becoming part owner (Hugh later becamepart owner, as well). That same year, Hughand Jerry made their own personal cryo-preservation arrangements with Alcor andHugh joined the Alcor Board. Mike Darwin,who had shown promising leadershipqualities, was installed as Alcor President.The next year (1983) Hugh finally got hisMaster’s degree in biochemistry.

Given his now-serious involvement incryonics, it shouldn’t come as a surprise thatHugh basically went straight from graduateschool to a career at Alcor. He was officiallyhired as Facilities Engineer in 1983, andinitially did a lot of the necessary administra-tive work, including editing, publishing, andmailing Cryonics magazine.

Meanwhile, research moved forwardwith a grant to Alcor from the LifeExtension Foundation which was headed bySaul Kent and Bill Faloon. Alcor andCryovita developed the MHP-2 washoutsolution which is still in use at Alcor today. Aconsequence of the intense experimentationwas that the surgical team got a lot of bypassexperience. Hugh recalls that “Jerry did thesurgeries, while Mike did the perfusions.Initially, I was batching the perfusates anddoing the blood chemistry, running theRadiometer blood-gas machine.”

In 1988, following the Dora Kent case –which resulted in severe tensions betweenAlcor and the Riverside, CA, coroner’s office– the Board replaced Mike Darwin with

Carlos Mondragon as President. “Therewere a couple of years of fighting atRiverside,” Hugh remembers. “The mediafrenzy surrounding the Dora Kent case ledto Jerry Leaf losing his job at UCLA.Meanwhile, the Society for Cryobiologyblacklisted anyone associated with cryonicsas well as vendors who sold products tocryonics organizations, making it difficultfor Alcor to obtain dewars for patientstorage. Then, to top it all off, Jerry Leafwent down and was cryopreserved in 1991.” “It turned out Jerry was the glue holdingeveryone together,” Hugh laments. More in-fighting and tensions led to CarlosMondragon’s replacement by Steve Bridge asPresident, and Mike Darwin leaving theorganization. With Jerry Leaf and MikeDarwin no longer active at Alcor, Hugh,who until then had been in a rather sub-sidiary position in the OR, suddenly had topick up the slack. “At that point, there was apretty steep curve for learning how to doperfusions,” he admits.

A strong push was made to move Alcorout of Riverside for several reasons. Tobegin, Alcor was simply outgrowing theRiverside facility. Additionally, ongoingpolitical struggles after the Dora Kent casehad resulted in a change in the facility’szoning to prohibit animal experimentation.In the same vein, continued problems withthe local coroner’s office did not bode wellfor operations. And last, but not least,Riverside was also in an earthquake zone,putting the patients in long-term care at risk.That’s when David Pizer, a member andbusinessman with strong ties in the Phoenixarea, suggested that Alcor move to Arizona. Given the situation in Riverside, Phoenixwas inviting. There were practically no risks

Captain at the helm: Hugh monitors thecomputer used to control patient cooldownto cryogenic temperature. He is responsiblefor the development of many technologies

used by Alcor today.______________________________________

A commitment to cryonics is necessary to ensure long-term care andto increase the probability of resuscitation.

_______________________________________________________________________________


of natural disaster, and the political climatelooked friendly. With Dave Pizer’s help,Alcor made the move to Arizona in 1994and was welcomed with open arms by theCity of Scottsdale, where the facility remainsto this day.

Things have gone fairly smoothly forAlcor since relocating to Arizona, thoughinternal and external politics have continuedto exert their effects, as evidenced by a suc-cession of President/CEOs. Steve Bridgekept a promise to resign after 4 years in 1997and was followed by a return of Fred andLinda Chamberlain (1997-2001). (They hadbeen Alcor’s original CEOs, 1972-1975).After the Chamberlains there was JerryLemler (2001-2003), Joe Waynick (2003-2005), Steve van Sickle (2005-2008), TanyaJones (2008-2009), Jennifer Chapman (2009-2010), and now Max More (2011- ). Butthrough it all, Hugh has remained a constantfixture, even in the face of personaladversity.

And what more frightening foe could acryonicist face than something life-threat-ening? Plagued by a genetic predisposition forcoronary artery disease, Hugh underwentbypass surgery in 1996. “That bought me 10years without any problems,” he explains.When he had angina in 2006, ending with amild heart attack, Hugh was ready to trysomething new. Ever the experimentalist, hetook part in a treatment known as enhancedexternal counterpulsation (EECP).Immediately relieved of CAD-relatedsymptoms, Hugh was amazed at the results.“My angina had come back, and wasunstentable. Nitro relieved the angina, but atthe cost of continuous nitro headaches,” herecalls. “EECP worked spectacularly for me.”

Through it all, Hugh was at Alcor doingwas he does best: technical development.Over the years he has invented such usefuldevices as the “crackphone,” which deter-mines cracking temperature and degree ofcracking during cryopreservations. He usedhis experience in the construction of theCryovita Labs Mobile Advanced LifeSupport System (MALSS) to design andbuild Alcor’s Mobile Advanced Rescue Cart(MARC). He is the initial fabricator of theBigfoot Patient Pod System and he modifiedthe MVE Bigfoot dewar design for simplermanufacture. Hugh also designed and wasinstrumental in constructing the PatientCare LN2 Bulk Fill System, in addition toconceiving, designing, and constructing theLN2 Vacuum Transfer System and the LN2Vapor Cloud Extractor (“fog sucker”). Hehas contributed to the development ofseveral iterations of cooldown boxes andcontrol systems at Alcor.

Hugh also designs Alcor’s perfusiontubing packs, makes cryoprotectantsolutions for perfusions, occasionally partic-ipates in field washouts and patient trans-ports, and, of course, still performs cryopro-tective perfusions, resulting in his participa-tion in a record number of cases. “Bydefault, I’ve turned out to be the person atAlcor who knows the most about cryonicstechnologies,” Hugh points out. “Andbecause I do so much stuff, when I have anangina attack, it tends to make people reallynervous.”

Indeed. As Hugh has aged, hiscontinued struggles with CAD have broughtthis issue to the forefront. All are agreedthat, given his long history in cryonics andbreadth of knowledge across so many fields,Hugh is simply irreplaceable by any othersingle person. It is more likely that at leasttwo people will be necessary to perform thevaried duties and functions that Hugh willeventually leave as his legacy.

“The most challenging aspect ofcryonics is to understand what we are doingand make it work,” he says. “Ultimately, itmust be possible, because we’re alive. Webasically just need to control molecularbiology. But how easy will this be? We don’tknow yet. All we can do for now is cryopre-serve the patient and either wait for nan-otechnology or come up with a reversiblecryoprotectant.” To that end, Hugh willundoubtedly continue to contribute ideasand design concepts to improve Alcor’soperations and services right up until themoment he requires them himself.

Accordingly, Hugh’s advice to fellowmembers is: “Don’t be in a hurry to get cry-opreserved; there are still a lot of problemsto be solved;” and “Don’t lie to yourselfabout the chances for success, eithergenerally or personally; it’s an experiment.But it’s not a dice roll; we can affect theoutcome. Lying leads to failure.”

If our little experiment ultimately issuccessful, I’ll be first in line to thankHugh Hixon. n

Hugh’s working day frequently includes fillingthe cooldown dewar with liquid nitrogen inpreparation for an upcoming patient.

______________________________________

Steve Van Sickle, former Alcor CEO, andHugh Hixon prepare liquid nitrogen ice

cream at the author’s wedding.______________________________________


2011 Q2 Readiness UpdateBy Aaron Drake, NREMT-P, CCTAlcor Medical Response Director

Alcor’s Recent CryopreservationIn late March this year, Alcor was notified

that a member in Pennsylvania had enteredthe hospital with severe abdominal pain andwas critically ill. As her medical providerspredicted that she would probably not survive,Alcor’s Medical Response Director, AaronDrake and Readiness Coordinator, SteveGraber were on a plane to the east coastwithin the next three hours. Upon arrival, themember’s health condition had stabilized andappeared to have improved somewhat. Hopeswere raised for a recovery, but diagnostic testsand blood labs indicated a terminal outcomewas likely. The pause in the patient’s healthdecline provided an opportunity to request theservices of Suspended Animation to helpperform a field washout and perfusion.

On the third day of the standby, themember succumbed. Highly cooperativehospital administrators and physicians allowedthe Alcor team to perform stabilization andcooldown procedures in the patient’s privateroom immediately following pronouncement.The patient was then transferred to a localmortuary where Suspended Animationcompleted the next step. The family hadprepaid additional funds to Alcor for a privatejet to eliminate potential delays associated withcommercial air travel. After a six and halfhour flight, the patient arrived at theScottsdale Airport, located just a few blocksfrom Alcor.

Alcor’s surgical team was standing by andperformed vitrification procedures throughoutthe night. On Saturday, March 26th, memberA-2478 became Alcor’s 104th patient.

Southern California Response VehicleThe newly remodeled Southern California

response vehicle has returned to Playa del Rey,CA and is once again ready for deployment.Alcor decided to perform a series of upgradesto the interior of the van to make it more

versatile on standbys and stabilizations. Theupgrades include adding an electric/hydraulichoist and sling lift system rated at a capacitysomewhat greater than 250 kilos. We added anintegrated side storage rack/bench with heavyduty straps for Pelican supply and medicationcase storage. The floor of the van was retro-fitted with a heavy duty track and strap systemto secure the Portable Ice Bath duringtransport. For internal power, a 2 kilowatt110v AC inverter was installed underneath thenew bench and two 28” long white LEDlighting strips of approximately 580 lumenseach were installed across the ceiling. We arevery excited about these new upgrades as thisvehicle serves a large percentage of Alcormembers who reside in the SouthernCalifornia region.

Team TrainingAlcor recently conducted two training

sessions for the Laughlin, NV and theScottsdale, AZ teams. The Laughlin teamwhich now has 16 staff members who aretrained and able to respond for cases. Thetraining included two full scenarios whereall medications and supplies were used on amannequin in a real-time environment.The visit also provided an opportunity todeliver their newly organized medicationsand supply kits.

The Scottsdale team also held a one daytraining review where 16 people were in atten-dance in addition to four Alcor staffmembers. The Scottsdale team training isdifferent from that of regional teams asdifferent equipment and supplies are used dueto the availability of Alcor’s rescue vehicle.

Medication ProtocolsThe medication protocols used in the

immediate stabilization of cryonics patientsvaried a bit between Alcor and SuspendedAnimation. To bring these two into

alignment, Alcor’s Research andDevelopment Committee reviewed andadopted a new uniform-dose based set ofmedications. This approach will simplify theadministration of medications and eliminatethe need to perform weight based drug cal-culations, when the patient’s weight is only aguesstimate. There was further refinementof appropriate dosages to achieve desiredeffectiveness.

To implement these changes acrossAlcor’s network of eight teams requires acoordinated effort to ensure that all medica-tions, package labeling, instructions andreference materials are modified to reflectthe new protocols. In Alcor’s kits, each med-ication, specific preparation supplies andadministration instructions are packaged as asingle unit to aid the team member andreduce the chance for error. To decrease thecost of replacing all of the medicationpackages simultaneously, a staggeredreplacement approach will be used over thecourse of the next month to ship thesesupplies to each of the teams. n

Aaron DrakeNREMT-P,CCT, MedicalResponse Director

Aaron Drake is a Nationally RegisteredEMT-Paramedic (NREMT-P) and aCertified Cardiovascular Technologist(CCT) who serves as Alcor’s MedicalResponse Director. In this position heis responsible for the standby, stabi-lization and transport operations ofthe Alcor Foundation.

About theAuthor

This ample volume considers eventsthat could wreak havoc on a globalscale, and possibly destroy civiliza-

tion or earthly life altogether. Projectingsuch future possibilities is hazardous; unex-pected developments could easily confoundpredictions, and the detailed analyses andcalculations which frequently occur in thebook and call for close study could quicklylose relevance. A pioneering work of thissort is welcome nonetheless. Human causesof devastation are given their due, but alsonatural calamities such as asteroid impacts.Some of the possibilities are remote but areincluded because they would be so devas-tating that the estimated probability timesthe estimated severity is still significant. Thedistinguished cast of some two dozen con-tributors includes many PhDs and oneNobel physicist, Frank Wilczek. Carefulthought and research are evidentthroughout, along with scrupulous concernover how we can avoid or mitigate theeffects of catastrophic events. There is,moreover, a spirit of cautious optimism insome of the more speculative chapters, suchas one on the future of artificial intelligence.Things could turn out much the worse, ofcourse, but need not and instead couldbenefit humanity in ways unprecedented andhardly imagined.

Just what is a global catastrophic risk?In the Introduction the editors offer aguideline: “A catastrophe that caused 10million fatalities or 10 trillion dollars worthof economic loss (e.g., an influenzapandemic) would count as a global catas-trophe, even if some region of the worldescaped unscathed.” On this basis, globalcatastrophes are nothing new but includesuch occurrences as the Black Death inmedieval Europe and the two world wars in

the 20th century. The asteroid impact that isthought to have killed the dinosaurs some 65million years ago illustrates another possi-bility—on an even grander scale—though asimilar event in the future might be fore-stalled by intelligent intervention. Theseverity of a risk of such disasters is charac-terized by three variables: (1) scope—howmany are affected (humans or possibly othercreatures); (2) intensity (how severely they areaffected); and (3) the probability of the event.Contributors to the book were asked notonly to estimate present-day risks but also toassess how these risks might develop overtime. This is an especially important consid-eration in view of technological progressand its effects on the attitudes, practices andgoals of people throughout the world.

The book is divided into four mainparts covering (1) background, (2) risks fromnature, (3) risks from unintended conse-quences, and (4) risks from hostile acts. Thebackground contains eight chapterscovering, among other topics, (1) the long-term fate of the universe, (2) evolutiontheory and the future of humanity, (3)cognitive biases potentially affecting thejudgment of global risks, (4) catastrophesand insurance, and (5) public policy towardcatastrophe. Under risks from nature arethree chapters dealing with (1) megascalevolcanism and other disruptive geophysicalprocesses, (2) comet and asteroid impacts,and (3) radiation from supernovas, gammarays, solar flares and cosmic rays. Risks fromunintended consequences include (1) climatechange, (2) plagues and pandemics, and (3)bad effects from unfriendly AI. Finally, thereare risks from hostile acts. One looming riskis from nuclear weapons, whether from gov-ernments or non-state agents (terrorists).Add to this the misuse of biotechnology and

nanotechnology. Finally, there is the possi-bility of totalitarian takeovers, maybe as areaction to terrorism on an unprecedentedscale, which in turn could be made feasiblethrough new, readily available technology.

In all it is not a cheery picture if youchoose to focus on the bad side.Unfortunately in particular, making troubleappears to be getting easier as technologyadvances, even as means of dealing with theproblems are also improving. Terrorism atleast is recognized as a threat and is solidlyopposed by most people everywhere, whichtends to make it harder to carry out. One ofthe most feared anticipated forms, the as-yetunrealized use of nuclear weapons, appearsto be especially difficult to engineer—oneground for hope. No private group has yetmade or acquired any nukes, as far as anyoneis aware—though some have tried—andthere is reason for cautious optimism that itwill not happen soon. If it does happen, say,

book review by R. Michael Perry

Global Catastrophic RisksEdited by Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Æirkoviæ (Oxford: 2008, Oxford University Press).



a few decades hence, we may hope that safe-guards will be in place to quickly neutralizethe threat.

The main safeguard could be advancedartificial intelligence, which by then mighthave sharpened and refined itself throughdecades of recursive self-improvement andinteractions with the humans it was createdto serve. An entire chapter of the book isdevoted to the possible risks that super-human AI itself could pose and how theserisks might be remedied, the key being tocreate friendly AI that will have humanity’sbest interests uppermost. Overall, I foundthis chapter, by Eliezer Yudkowski, the mostinteresting of all in the book. In short, weare talking about creating something at leastvaguely godlike, to minister to our needswhatever they may be, and in particularprotect us from catastrophic risks.

The creation of such a system would,needless to say, not be undertaken lightly butwould exercise human talents to the utmostin view of the possible consequences of aserious misstep as well as the benefits thatcould otherwise accrue. If all went well wecould find ourselves freed of diseases andaging as well as the need to labor for a living,under the benign patronage of a great,caring overseer which would look after uslike our parents once did. (As one spinoff ofthis engineered benevolence, cryonicspatients could be resuscitated withoutcharge.) Though in theory this might be fine,at least until we could “grow up” and attaina more advanced status ourselves withpowers enhanced through the help of ourAI genie, many of us find this idea unset-tling. We want to be our own bosses, in caseour mechanized supernanny did manage tomalfunction, and more generally because itsomehow seems right and fitting. So best ofall would come the prospect of greatlyenhancing our own powers with whateverhelp our protector could provide, whichwould narrow the gap between itself and usto essentially the vanishing point. A gloriousfuture could thus unfold, but we must takethe right steps to lead up to it. n

Nick Bostrom

Nick Bostrom is director of the Futureof Humanity Institute at OxfordUniversity. He previously taught in theFaculty of Philosophy and in theInstitute for Social and Policy Studies atYale University. He has a backgroundin physics and computational neuro-science as well as philosophy.Bostrom’s research covers the founda-tions of probability theory, scientificmethodology, and risk analysis, and heis one of the world’s leading experts onethical issues related to humanenhancement and emerging technolo-gies such as artificial intelligence andnanotechnology. He has publishedsome 100 papers and articles,including papers in Nature, Mind,Journal of Philosophy, Bioethics, Journalof Medical Ethics, Astrophysics & SpaceScience, one monograph, AnthropicBias (Routledge, New York, 2002), andtwo edited volumes with OxfordUniversity Press. One of his papers,written in 2001, introduced theconcept of an existential risk. Hiswritings have been translated intomore than 14 languages. Bostrom hasworked briefly as an expert consultantfor the European Commission inBrussels and for the Central IntelligenceAgency in Washington, DC. He is alsofrequently consulted as a commentatorby the media. Preprints of many of hispapers can be found on his website,http://www.nickbostrom.com.

Milan M. Ćirković

Milan M. Ćirković is a researchassociate of the AstronomicalObservatory of Belgrade, (Serbia) and aprofessor of cosmology at theDepartment of Physics, University ofNovi Sad (Serbia). He received his Ph.D. in Physics from the State Universityof New York at Stony Brook (USA),M.S. in Earth and Space Sciences fromthe same university, and his B.S. inTheoretical Physics from the Universityof Belgrade. His primary researchinterests are in the fields of astrophys-ical cosmology (baryonic dark matter,star formation, future of the universe),astrobiology (anthropic principles, SETIstudies, catastrophic episodes in thehistory of life), as well as philosophy ofscience (risk analysis, foundationalissues in quantum mechanics andcosmology). A unifying theme in thesefields is the nature of physical time, therelationship of time and complexity,and various aspects of entropy-increasing processes taking placethroughout the universe. He wrote onemonograph (QS0 AbsorptionSpectroscopy and Baryonic DarkMatter; Belgrade, 2005) and translatedseveral books, including titles byRichard P. Feynman and RogerPenrose. In recent years, his researchhas been published in Monthly Noticesof the Royal Astronomical Society,Physics Letters A, Astrobiology, NewAstronomy, Foundations of Physics,Philosophical Quarterly and othermajor journals.

About the Editors


ARIZONAScottsdale:This group meets the third Friday of eachmonth and gatherings are hosted at a homenear Alcor. To RSVP, visit http://cryonics.meetup.com/45/.

At Alcor:Alcor Board of Directors Meetings andFacility Tours – Alcor business meetingsare generally held on the first Saturday ofevery month starting at 11:00 AM MST.Guests are welcome. Facility tours are heldevery Tuesday and Friday at 2:00 PM. Formore information or to schedule a tour,call D’Bora Tarrant at (877) 462-5267 x101 or email [email protected]. CALIFORNIALos Angeles:Alcor Southern California Meetings—For information, call Peter Voss at(310) 822-4533 or e-mail him [email protected]. Although monthlymeetings are not held regularly, you canmeet Los Angeles Alcor members by contacting Peter.

San Francisco Bay:Alcor Northern California Meetings areheld quarterly in January, April, July, andOctober. A CryoFeast is held once a year.For information on Northern Californiameetings, call Mark Galeck at (408) 245-4928or email [email protected].

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIALife Extension Society, Inc. is acryonics and life extension group withmembers from Washington, D.C.,Virginia, and Maryland. Meetings areheld monthly. Contact Secretary KeithLynch at [email protected]. Forinformation on LES, see our web site atwww.keithlynch.net/les.

FLORIDACentral Florida Life Extension group meetsonce a month in the Tampa Bay area(Tampa and St. Petersburg) for discussionand socializing. The group has been activesince 2007. Email [email protected] for more information.

NEW ENGLANDCambridge:The New England regional group strives tomeet monthly in Cambridge, MA – forinformation or to be added to the AlcorNE mailing list, please contact Bret Kulakovich at 617-824-8982,[email protected], or onFACEBOOK via the Cryonics SpecialInterest Group.

PACIFIC NORTHWESTCryonics Northwest holds regular meetingsfor members of all cryonics organizationsliving in the Pacific Northwest.

For information about upcoming meetings andevents go to: http://www.cryonicsnw.org/ andhttp://www.facebook.com/cryonics.northwest

A Yahoo mailing list is also maintained forcryonicists in the Pacific Northwest athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/CryonicsNW/.

British Columbia (Canada):The contact person for meetings in theVancouver area is Keegan Macintosh:[email protected]

Oregon:The contact person for meetings in thePortland area is Chana de Wolf:[email protected]

Washington:The contact person for meetings in theSeattle area is Regina Pancake:[email protected]

ALCOR PORTUGALAlcor Portugal is working to have goodstabilization and transport capabilities. Thegroup meets every Saturday for two hours.For information about meetings, contactNuno Martins at [email protected]. The Alcor Portugal websiteis: www.alcorportugal.com.

TEXASDallas:North Texas Cryonauts, please sign up forour announcements list for meetings(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cryonauts-announce) or contact DavidWallace Croft at (214) 636-3790 for detailsof upcoming meetings.

Austin/Central Texas: We meet at least quarterly for training, transport kit updates, and discussion. For information: Steve Jackson, 512-447-7866,[email protected].

UNITED KINGDOMThere is an Alcor chapter in England.For information about meetings, contactAlan Sinclair at [email protected] the web site at www.alcor-uk.org.

About the Alcor FoundationThe Alcor Life Extension Foundation is a nonprofit tax-exempt scientific and edu-cational organization dedicated to advancing the science of cryopreservation andpromoting cryonics as a rational option. Being an Alcor member means knowingthat—should the worst happen—Alcor’s Emergency Response Team is ready torespond for you, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Alcor’s Emergency Response capability includes specially trained technicians andcustomized equipment in Arizona, northern California, southern California, andsouth Florida, as well as many additional certified technicians on-call around theUnited States. Alcor’s Arizona facility includes a full-time staff, and the Patient CareBay is personally monitored 24 hours a day.

Meetings

If you are interested in hosting regular meetings in your area, contact Alcor at 877-462-5267 ext. 113. Meetings are a greatway to learn about cryonics, meet others with similar interests,and introduce your friends and family to Alcor members!

What is Cryonics?

How do I find out more?

How do I enroll?

Cryonics is an attempt to preserve and protect human life, not reverse death. It is the practice of usingextreme cold to attempt to preserve the life of a person who can no longer be supported by today’s

medicine. Will future medicine, including mature nanotechnology, have the ability to heal at the cellularand molecular levels? Can cryonics successfully carry the cryopreserved person forward through time,for however many decades or centuries might be necessary, until the cryopreservation process can bereversed and the person restored to full health? While cryonics may sound like science fiction, there is abasis for it in real science. The complete scientific story of cryonics is seldom told in media reports,leaving cryonics widely misunderstood. We invite you to reach your own conclusions.

The Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the world leader in cryonics research and technology. Alcoris a non-profit organization located in Scottsdale, Arizona, founded in 1972. Our website is one of

the best sources of detailed introductory information about Alcor and cryopreservation (www.alcor.org).We also invite you to request our FREE information package on the “Free Information” section of ourwebsite. It includes:

• A fully illustrated color brochure

• A sample of our magazine

• An application for membership and brochure explaining how to join

• And more!

Your free package should arrive in 1-2 weeks.

(The complete package will be sent free in the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom.)

Signing up for a cryopreservation is easy! Step 1: Fill out an application and submit it with your $150 application fee. Step 2: You will then be sent a set of contracts to review and sign. Step 3: Fund your cryopreservation. While most people use life insurance to

fund their cryopreservation, other forms of prepayment are alsoaccepted. Alcor’s Membership Coordinator can provide you with alist of insurance agents familiar with satisfying Alcor’s currentfunding requirements.

Finally: After enrolling, you will wear emergency alert tags or carry a specialcard in your wallet. This is your confirmation that Alcor will respondimmediately to an emergency call on your behalf.

Call toll-free today to start your application:

877-462-5267 ext. 132 [email protected]