Cryonics

Cryonics (often mistakenly called "cryogenics") is the practice of cryopreserving humans or animals that can no longer be sustained by contemporary medicine until resuscitation may be possible in the future. The process is not currently reversible, and by law can only be performed on humans after legal death. Cryonics is viewed with skepticism by most scientists and doctors today. However, there is a high representation of scientists among cryonics supporters.[1] Scientific support for cryonics is based on projections of future technology, especially molecular nanotechnology and nanomedicine. Some scientists believe that future medicine will enable molecular-level repair and regeneration of damaged tissues and organs decades or centuries in the future. Disease and aging are also assumed to be reversible.

The central premise of cryonics is that memory, personality, and identity are stored in the structure and chemistry of the brain. While this view is widely accepted in medicine, and brain activity is known to stop and later resume under certain conditions, it is not generally accepted that current methods preserve the brain well enough to permit revival in the future. Cryonics advocates point to studies showing that high concentrations of cryoprotectant circulated through the brain before cooling can mostly prevent freezing injury, preserving the fine cell structures of the brain in which memory and identity presumably reside.

To its detractors, the justification for the actual practice of cryonics is unclear, given present limitations of preservation technology. Currently cells, tissues, blood vessels, and some small animal organs can be reversibly cryopreserved. Some frogs can survive for a few months in a partially frozen state a few degrees below freezing, but this is not true cryopreservation. Cryonics advocates counter that demonstrably reversible preservation is not necessary to achieve the present-day goal of cryonics, which is preservation of basic brain information that encodes memory and personal identity. Preservation of this information is said to be sufficient to prevent information theoretic death until future repairs are possible.

Probably the most famous cryopreserved patient is Ted Williams. The popular urban legend that Walt Disney was cryopreserved is false; he was cremated, and interred at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery. Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote enthusiastically of the concept, was cremated and his ashes distributed over the Pacific Ocean. Timothy Leary was a long-time cryonics advocate, and signed up with a major cryonics provider. He changed his mind, however, shortly before his death, and so was not cryopreserved.

Contents

[edit]

Obstacles to success

[edit]

Damage from ice formation and ischemia

Cryonics has traditionally been dismissed by mainstream cryobiology, of which it is arguably a part. The reason generally given for this dismissal is that the freezing process creates ice crystals, which some scientists have claimed damage cells and cellular structures so as to render any future repair impossible. Cryonicists have long argued, however, that the extent of this damage was greatly exaggerated by the critics, presuming that some reasonable attempt is made to perfuse the body with cryoprotectant chemicals (traditionally glycerol) that inhibit ice crystal formation.

According to cryonicists, the ice crystal damage objection became moot around the turn of the millennium, when cryobiologists Greg Fahy and Brian Wowk, of Twenty-First Century Medicine, developed major improvements in cryopreservation technology, including new cryoprotectants and new cryoprotectant mixtures, greatly improving the feasibility of vitrification, and resulting in the near-elimination of ice crystal formation in the brain. Vitrification preserves tissue in a glassy rather than frozen state. In glass, molecules do not rearrange themselves into grainy crystals as they are cooled, but instead become locked together while still randomly arranged as in a fluid, forming a "solid liquid" as the temperature falls below the glass transition temperature. Alcor Life Extension Foundation, the world's largest cryonics provider, has since been using these cryoprotectants, along with a new, faster cooling method, to vitrify whole human brains (neurovitrification). The second-largest cryonics provider in the world, the Cryonics Institute (CI), uses a vitrification solution developed by its in-house cryobiologist, Dr. Yuri Pichugin. CI has developed computer-controlled cooling boxes to ensure that cooling is rapid above Tg (glass transition temperature, solidification temperature) and slow below Tg (to reduce fracturing due to thermal stress).

Current solutions being used for vitrification are stable enough to avoid crystallization even when a vitrified brain is warmed up. This has recently allowed brains to be vitrified, warmed back up, and examined for ice damage using light and electron microscopy. No ice crystal damage was found. However, if the circulation of the brain is compromised, protective chemicals may not be able to reach all parts of the brain, and freezing may occur either during cooling or during rewarming. Cryonicists argue, however, that injury caused during cooling might, in the future, be repairable before the vitrified brain is warmed back up, and that damage during rewarming might be prevented by adding more cryoprotectant in the solid state, or by improving rewarming methods. But even given the best vitrification that current technology allows, rewarming still does not allow revival, even if crystallization is avoided, due to the toxic effects of the cryoprotectants. Again, however, cryonicists counter that future technology might be able to overcome this difficulty, and find a way to combat the toxicity after rewarming. If, for example, the toxicity is due to denatured proteins, those proteins could be repaired or replaced.

Some critics have speculated that because a cryonics patient has been declared legally dead, their organs must be dead, and thus unable to allow cryoprotectants to reach the majority of cells. Cryonicists respond that it has been empirically demonstrated that, so long as the cryopreservation process begins immediately after legal death is declared, the individual organs (and perhaps even the patient as a whole) remain biologically alive, and vitrification (particularly of the brain) is quite feasible. This same principle is what allows organs, such as hearts, to be transplanted, even though they come from dead donors.

Cryonics rescue procedures cannot begin until legal pronouncement of death has occurred, and pronouncement is usually based on cessation of heartbeat (only very rarely on brain activity measurements). When the heart stops beating and blood flow ceases, ischemic damage begins. Deprived of oxygen and nutrient, cells, tissues and organs begin to deteriorate. If the heart is restarted after too many minutes have passed, the reintroduced oxygen can cause even more damage due to oxidative stress, a phenomenon known as reperfusion injury. Cryonicists try to minimize ischemic and reperfusion injury by beginning cardio-pulmonary support (much like CPR) and cooling as soon as possible after pronouncement of death. Anti-clotting agents like heparin and antioxidants may be administered. Suspended Animation, Inc is a Florida company that specializes in research into, and implementation of, optimal procedures for minimizing ischemic injury in cryonics rescue.

[edit]

Revival process

Critics have often quipped that it is easier to revive a corpse than a cryonically frozen body. Many cryonicists might actually agree with this, provided that the "corpse" were fresh, but they would argue that such a "corpse" may actually be biologically alive, under optimal conditions. A declaration of legal death does not mean that life has suddenly ended—death is a gradual process, not a sudden event. Rather, legal death is a declaration by medical personnel that there is nothing more they can do to save the patient. But if the body is clearly biologically dead, having been sitting at room temperature for a period of time, or having been traditionally embalmed, then cryonicists would hold that such a body is far less revivable than a cryonically preserved patient, because any process of resuscitation will depend on the quality of the structural and molecular preservation of the brain.

Cryonicists would also point out that the definitions of "death" and "corpse" currently in use may change with future medical advances, just as they have changed in the past (after, for example, the invention of defibrillation), and so they generally reject the idea that they are trying to "raise the dead," viewing their procedures instead as highly experimental medical procedures, whose efficacy is yet to be either demonstrated or refuted. Some also suggest that if technology is developed that allows mind transfer, revival of the frozen brain might not even be required; the mind of the patient could instead be "uploaded" into an entirely new substrate.

[edit]

Financial issues

The biggest drawback to current vitrification practice is a cost issue. Because the most cost-effective means of storing a cryopreserved person is in liquid nitrogen, fracturing of the brain occurs, a result of thermal stresses that develop when cooling from −130°C to −196°C (the temperature of liquid nitrogen). Fracture-free vitrification would require inexpensive storage at a temperature significantly below the glass transition temperature of about −125°C, but high enough to avoid fracturing (−130°C is about right). Alcor is currently developing such a storage system. Alcor believes, however, that even before such a storage system is developed, the current vitrification method is far superior to traditional glycerol-based freezing. The fractures are very clean breaks that occur even with traditional glycerol cryoprotection, and the loss of neurological structure is much less than that caused by ice formation, by orders of magnitude.

Cryopreservation arrangements can be expensive, currently ranging from $28,000 at the Cryonics Institute to $150,000 at Alcor and the American Cryonics Society. Most cryonicists fund the costs by making cryonics organizations the beneficiaries of life insurance policies. The elderly, and others who may be uninsurable for health reasons, will often pay for the procedure through their estate. Others simply invest their money over a period of years, accepting the risk that they might die in the meantime. All in all, cryonics is actually quite affordable for the vast majority of those in the industrialized world who really want it, especially if they make arrangements while still young.

Even assuming perfect cryopreservation techniques, many cryonicists would still regard eventual revival as a long shot. In addition to the many technical hurdles that remain, the likelihood of obtaining a good cryopreservation is not very high because of logistical problems. The likelihood of the continuity of cryonics organizations as businesses, and the threat of legislative interference in the practice, don't help the odds either. Most cryonicists, therefore, regard their cryopreservation arrangements as a kind of medical insurance—not certain to keep them alive, but better than no chance at all and still a rational gamble to take.

[edit]

Head ("neuro") vs. whole-body cryopreservation

During the 1980s, the problems associated with crystallization were becoming better appreciated, but the publication of the book Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler in 1986 aroused a great deal of interest in the idea that nanotechnology would be able to repair freezing damage. Alcor and the American Cryonics Society shifted emphasis from whole body to "neuropreservation" ("neuro", head-only cryopreservation), on the assumption that the rest of the body could be regrown, perhaps by cloning of the person's DNA or reconstructed with nanotechnology. The main goal now seems to be to preserve the information contained in the structure of the brain, on which memory and personal identity depends. Available scientific and medical evidence suggests that the mechanical structure of the brain is wholly responsible for personal identity and memories (for instance, spinal cord injury victims, organ transplant patients, and amputees appear to retain their personal identity and memories). Damage caused by freezing and fracturing is thought to be potentially repairable in the future, using nanotechnology, which will enable the manipulation of matter at the molecular level. To critics, this appears a kind of futuristic deus ex machina, but while the engineering details remain speculative, the rapidity of scientific advances over the past century, and more recently in the field of nanotechnology itself, suggest to some that there may be no insurmountable problems. And the cryopreserved patient can wait a long time. With the advent of vitrification, the importance of nanotechnology to the cryonics movement may begin to decrease.

Some critics, and even some cryonicists, question this emphasis on the brain, arguing that during neuropreservation some information about the body's phenotype will be lost and the new body may feel "unwanted," and that in case of brain damage the body may serve as a crude backup, helping restore indirectly some of the memories.[2] The argument is also made that the body is personal memorabilia of life-history, much like diaries and photo albums. Partly for this reason (as well as for better public relations), the Cryonics Institute preserves only whole bodies. Some proponents of neuropreservation agree with these concerns, but still feel that lower costs and better brain preservation justify preserving only the brain. About three-quarters of the patients stored at Alcor are "neuros".

[edit]

Philosophy and Ethics

Cryonics is based on a view of dying as a process that can be stopped in the minutes, and perhaps hours, following clinical death. If death is not an event that happens suddenly when the heart stops, this raises philosophical questions about what exactly death is. In 2005 an ethics debate in the medical journal, Critical Care, noted “…few if any patients pronounced dead by today’s physicians are in fact truly dead by any scientifically rigorous criteria.” Cryonics proponent Thomas Donaldson has argued that “death” based on cardiac arrest or resuscitation failure is a purely social construction used to justify terminating care of dying patients. In this view, legal death and its aftermath are a form of euthanasia. Philosopher Max More suggested a distinction between death associated with circumstances and intention versus death that is absolutely irreversible. Absolutely irreversible death has also been called information-theoretic death. Bioethicist James Hughes has written that increasing rights will accrue to cryonics patients as prospects for revival become clearer, noting that recovery of legally dead persons has precedent in the discovery of missing persons.

Ethical and theological opinions of cryonics tend to pivot on the issue of whether cryonics is regarded as interment or medicine. If cryonics is interment, then religious beliefs about death and afterlife come into consideration. Resuscitation is generally deemed impossible because the soul is gone, and only God can resurrect the dead. Expensive interment is seen as a waste of resources. If cryonics is regarded as medicine, with legal death as a mere enabling mechanism, then cryonics is a long-term coma with uncertain prognosis. It is continuing to care for sick people when others have given up, and a legitimate use of resources to sustain human life. Cryonics advocates complain that theological dismissal of cryonics because it is interment is a circular argument because calling cryonics interment presumes that cryonics cannot work. They believe future technical advances will validate their view that cryonics patients are recoverable, and therefore never really dead.

Alcor has published a vigorous Christian defense of cryonics, including excerpts of a sermon by Lutheran Reverend Kay Glaesner. Noted Christian apologist John Warwick Montgomery has defended cryonics. In 1969, a Roman Catholic priest consecrated the cryonics capsule of Ann DeBlasio, one of the first cryonics patients. In 2002, a Muslim cleric indicated in a media interview that cryonics would be compatible with Islam if it were medicine.

[edit]

History

Benjamin Franklin suggested in a famous 1773 letter [3] that it might be possible to preserve human life in a suspended state for centuries. However the modern era of cryonics began in 1962 when Michigan college physics professor Robert Ettinger proposed in a privately published book, “The Prospect of Immortality”[4], that freezing people may be a way to reach future medical technology. Even though freezing a person is apparently fatal, Ettinger argued that what appears to be fatal today may be reversible in the future. He applied the same argument to the process of dying itself, saying that the early stages of clinical death may be reversible in the future. Combining these two ideas, he suggested that freezing recently deceased people may be a way to save lives.

Slightly before Ettinger’s book was complete, Evan Cooper (writing as Nathan Duhring) privately published a book called “Immortality: Physically, Scientifically, Now” that independently suggested the same idea. Cooper founded the Life Extension Society in 1965 to promote freezing people. Ettinger came to be credited as the originator of cryonics, perhaps because his book was republished by Doubleday in 1964 on recommendation of Isaac Asimov and Fred Pohl, and received more publicity. Ettinger also stayed with the movement longer. Nevertheless, cryonics historian R. Michael Perry has written “Evan Cooper deserves the principal credit for forming an organized cryonics movement.”[5]

The actual word “cryonics” was invented by Karl Werner in 1965 in conjunction with the founding of the Cryonics Society of New York (CSNY) by Curtis Henderson and Saul Kent that same year. This was followed by the founding of the Cryonics Society of Michigan (CSM) and Cryonics Society of California (CSC) in 1966, and Bay Area Cryonics Society (BACS) in 1969 (renamed the American Cryonics Society, or ACS, in 1985). CSM eventually became the Immortalist Society, a non-profit affiliate of the Cryonics Institute (CI), a cryonics service organization founded by Robert Ettinger in 1976, now the second-largest cryonics organization.

Although there was at least one earlier aborted case, it is generally accepted that the first person frozen with intent of future resuscitation was Dr. James Bedford, a 73-year-old psychology professor frozen under crude conditions by CSC on January 12, 1967. The case made the cover of a limited print run of Life Magazine before the presses were stopped to report the death of three astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire instead.

Cryonics suffered a major setback [6] in 1979 when it was discovered that nine bodies stored by CSC in a cemetery in Chatsworth, California, thawed due to depletion of funds. Some of the bodies had apparently thawed years earlier without notification. The head of CSC was sued, and negative publicity slowed cryonics growth for years afterward. Of seventeen documented cryonics cases between 1967 and 1973, only James Bedford remains cryopreserved today. Strict financial controls and requirements adopted in response to the Chatsworth scandal have resulted in the successful maintenance of almost all cryonics cases since that era.

The largest cryonics organization today was established by Fred and Linda Chamberlain in 1972 as the Alcor Society for Solid State Hypothermia (ALCOR). In 1977 the name was changed to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation. In 1982, the Institute for Advanced Biological Studies (IABS) founded by Mike Darwin and Steve Bridge in Indiana merged with Alcor. By combining Darwin’s technical and communications skills with those of medical scientist Jerry Leaf, this merger is generally regarded as a key event that allowed Alcor to attract a critical mass of knowledgeable people, eventually moving Alcor to a leading position in the field.

During the 1980s Darwin worked with UCLA cardiothoracic surgery researcher Jerry Leaf at Alcor to develop a medical model for cryonics procedures. Prior to Leaf and Darwin, cryonics preparation was little more than a mortuary procedure in which cryoprotectant chemicals were substituted for embalming fluid. Leaf and Darwin showed that CPR and medications applied immediately after cardiac arrest, followed by cardiopulmonary bypass and thoracic surgery for access to major blood vessels, could greatly reduce ischemic injury (injury caused by stopped blood flow) in cryonics patients. They created the cryonics procedure now known as a “standby”, in which a stabilization team stands by to institute life support procedures at the bedside of a cryonics patient as soon as possible after the heart stops.

Cryonics received new support in the 1980s when MIT engineer Eric Drexler started publishing papers and books foreseeing the new field of molecular nanotechnology. His 1986 book, Engines of Creation, included an entire chapter on cryonics applications[7]. Cryonics advocates saw the nascent field of nanotechnology as vindication of their long held view [8] that molecular repair of injured tissue was theoretically possible.

Nanotechnology has also been the cause of controversy within the cryonics field, with some cryonics advocates arguing that sophisticated preservation methods aren’t necessary because “nanotechnology is necessary and sufficient” for cryonics to work. Critics countered that believing nanotechnology is necessary and sufficient without regard to preservation quality is more religion than science. The simultaneous advent of Leaf and Darwin’s medical model of cryonics, and the nanotechnology repair paradigm, polarized cryonics into two schools of thought [9] that persist to the present day. One school tends to believe that simple inexpensive procedures administered by morticians are sufficient, while the other advocates monitoring and maintaining viability by contemporary medical methods as far as possible into the procedure, with reversible suspended animation as an ultimate goal.

In the late 1980s a nexus of favorable circumstances, including technical progress, support from nanotechnology experts, and effective communications, led to a period of rapid growth, especially of Alcor. Alcor’s membership expanded ten-fold within a decade, with a 30% annual growth rate between 1988 and 1992.

Alcor was disrupted by political turmoil in 1993 when a group of activists left to start the CryoCare Foundation, and associated for-profit companies CryoSpan, Inc. (headed by Paul Wakfer) and BioPreservation, Inc. (headed by Mike Darwin). Darwin and collaborators made many technical advances during this time period, including a landmark study documenting high quality brain preservation by freezing with high concentrations of glycerol. CryoCare ceased operations in 1999 when they were unable to renew their service contract with BioPreservation. CryoCare’s two patients stored at CryoSpan were transferred to Alcor. Several ACS patients stored at CryoSpan were transferred to CI.

There have been numerous, often transient, for-profit companies involved in cryonics. For-profit companies were often paired or affiliated with non-profit groups they served. Some of these companies, with non-profits they served in parentheses, were Cryonic Interment, Inc. (CSC), Cryo-Span Corporation (CSNY), Cryo-Care Equipment Corporation (CSC and CSNY), Manrise Corporation ( Alcor), CryoVita, Inc. ( Alcor), BioTransport, Inc. ( Alcor), Trans Time, Inc. (BACS), Soma, Inc. (IABS), CryoSpan, Inc. (CryoCare and ACS), BioPreservation, Inc. (CryoCare and ACS), Suspended Animation, Inc. ( Alcor and CI). Only Trans Time and Suspended Animation still exist. Apparently none of the companies were ever profitable. The cryonics field seems to have largely consolidated around the two non-profit groups, Alcor and Cryonics Institute (CI), both deriving significant income from bequests and donations.

As research in the 1990s revealed the damaging effects of freezing in greater detail, there was a trend to use higher concentrations of glycerol cryoprotectant to prevent freezing injury. In 2001 Alcor began using vitrification (a technology borrowed from mainstream organ preservation research) in an attempt to completely prevent ice formation during cold preservation. Because vitrification technology could then only be applied to the head, heads and bodies were sometimes separated to optimize preservation of the brain, causing much public confusion.

In 2005 Alcor began applying vitrification (or attempted vitrification) treatment to the whole body simultaneously without removal of the head. In the same year, the Cryonics Institute began using a new procedure in which the head is vitrified while still attached to the body, which is frozen without any cryoprotectant.

When the baseball star Ted Williams was cryopreserved by Alcor in 2002 a family dispute arose as to whether Ted had really wanted to be cryopreserved. Following a July, 2003 Sports Illustrated article claiming that Alcor had mishandled Ted Williams[10][11][12], Alcor had to fight for its existence in the Arizona legislature.[13] At minimum, Alcor could have been denied use of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, which could have impaired its ability to gain rapid access to cryonics patients. Despite not being responsible for Ted Williams, the media blitz resulted in the Cryonics Institute (CI) being placed under a "Cease and Desist" order by the State of Michigan for six months. Finally the Michigan government decided to regulate CI as a cemetery.

Alcor currently maintains about 70 cryonics patients in Scottsdale, Arizona and the Cryonics Institute has about the same number of cryonics patients in its Clinton Township, Michigan facility. There are no cryonics service providers outside of the United States, although there are support groups in Europe, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.

[edit]

Culture

[edit]

Cryonics in mass culture

Procedures similar to cryonics have been featured in innumerable science fiction stories to aid space travel, or as means to transport a character from the past into the future. In addition to accomplishing whatever the character's primary task is in the future, he or she must cope with the strangeness of a new world, which may contain only traces of their previous surroundings. This prospect of alienation is often cited as a major reason for the unpopularity of cryonics.

Relatively few stories have been published concerning the primary objective and definition of cryonics, which is medical time travel. Novels with this theme include the national best-seller The First Immortal by James Halperin, The Age of the Pussyfoot by Fred Pohl, Chiller by Sterling Blake (aka Gregory Benford), Tomorrow and Tomorrow by Charles Sheffield, Ralph’s Journey by David Pizer, and Formerly Brandewyne by Jude Liebermann. The novel Fiasco by Stanislaw Lem raised the question of whether a person cryopreserved for centuries and then revived with amnesia is still the same person. A 1931 short story by Neil R. Jones called The Jameson Satellite has been credited with giving Robert Ettinger the seed of the idea of cryonics when he was a teenager.

Movies featuring time travel for medical purposes include the Woody Allen comedy, Sleeper, and the films Late for Dinner and Vanilla Sky. Although not about cryonics per se, the Ron Howard film Cocoon has been hailed by cryonics advocates as expressing the values motivating cryonics better than any other film.

On television, producer David E. Kelley wrote well-researched and essentially accurate portrayals of cryonics for the T.V. shows L.A. Law (1990 episode), Picket Fences ( 1994 episode), and Boston Legal (2005 episode). In each case, there was a dying plaintiff petitioning a court for the right to elective cryopreservation. The episode "The Neutral Zone" from the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation also featured three cryopreserved people in an ancient spacecraft. They had legally died in the 20th century, but were viable and recoverable by 24th century technology. Cryonics was also satirized by the comedy cartoon series Futurama, in which the character, Philip J. Fry, is accidentally cryopreserved at the turn of the millennium on December 31st 1999, and revived on December 31st 2999, a thousand years later.

It has also been featured in the video game Halo.

[edit]

The subculture of cryonicists

Cryonicists to some extent form an ethnic group or subculture because of their common interests and radical departure from standard cultural norms. To choose cryonics usually requires intelligence, an appreciation for science/technology (technophilia), love of life (a desire for life extension), independent thinking and an ability to resist social pressure/disapproval. Male cryonicists outnumber females by three or four to one. Cryonicists are often computer professionals, libertarians, readers of science fiction and people who have little regard for conventional religion. Often cryonicists have chosen cryonics without support or interest by any of their family or friends, and participate in the cryonics community by e-mail or occasional meetings. Although the alienation of cryonicists from mass culture should make them a close community, their independence and passion has often made cryonicists intensely hostile to each other. (To borrow from a common ethnic joke, two cryonicists on an island might form three political parties.)

Cryonicists have been able to form cryonics societies in highly populated areas (see history section), have regular meetings, publish magazines and hold conferences. Saul Kent and Evan Cooper as well as Fred and Linda Chamberlain were active in organizing cryonics conferences in the early years of cryonics. The magazines of the cryonics organizations have also helped keep members of the cryonics community informed about events and common problems. On July 24, 1988 a Ph.D. in computer science named Kevin Brown started an electronic mailing list called CryoNet that became a powerful tool of communication for the cryonics community. Although the list often is filled with philosophical ruminations about the meaning of personal identity, it remains the most central point of contact for cryonicists.

Cryonicists have also had a common jargon, including their use of the words patient, death, deanimation and suspension. The phrase cryonic suspension to describe cryopreservation is falling into disfavor, partly because cryopreservation is not really suspended animation and human bodies or heads are not buoyant enough in liquid nitrogen to be suspended. As in other subcultures, some members of the community can have strong feelings about the use of "politically correct" cryonics language.

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

See also

[edit]

External links

[edit]

News Articles