Twink (
Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:10:28 -0500 (EST)

At 03:59 PM 12/14/97 +0100, Anders Sandberg <> wrote:
>There is research being done on
>finding good cryoprotectants, but it is more narrow than your
>approach. A wide search would be useful, but it would be expensive and
>we need good specifications. I suppose the cryo people can comment
>more extensively on this topic.

I believe if we get good specifications from the start, the search can be done
much more cheaply. Also, if the search is kept in the public's eye, the cost
might be lessened -- provided most participants agree with this.

>I think this is the hard part, since damage is not just quantitative,
>it is also qualitative. Is it good if the cell walls are whole but
>some proteins are denaturated? I would suggest that the effect on the
>brain is the most important, but even there it is not clear what
>structures are the most important (sacrifice axons for synapses, or
>vice versa?).

I agree, but some rough measures can be used, and as we learn more
better measures can be developed. We might, e.g., find some protein(s)
that are more sensitive to such damage that are an easy indicator of the
effectiveness of the cryoprotectant. If such could be found, then the
measurement process could be reduced to testing just that(those)
protein(s) initially to find good cryoprotectants, then doing more extensive
tests after finding a good pool of candidates.

Are any cryonics people listening? I would appreciate any comments
on this from them.

Daniel Ust
See my recent essay on H. P. Lovecraft at: