Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

brainpreservation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 35 posts

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#11

Post by reasonattlm »

The comments suggesting that this is unimportant are pretty silly. People have been objecting to cryonics on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to preserve fine structure, versus only having had a reasonable set of evidence to preserve fine structure. They have objected on the basis that proven methods of preservation in small scale tissue samples hadn't been rigorously demonstrated to work in large organs. Now that the fine structure and scaling doubts are dispelled, they move on to objecting for other reasons, and even suggest that it was obvious in hindsight that the fine structure was preserved, or that methods would scale.

Denying that cryonics is relevant or useful or a valid area of research and development because no-one has yet completely implemented the full loop of technologies for reversible full body cryopreservation is missing the point. (But note that it has been done for a single organ, which was transplanted, and functioned).

The point is that we could be saving lives, and we are not, largely because of irrational objections that are not really based on technological or scientific positions, but grasp at a those positions as a shield for the real nebulous feelings on the matter.

The reversal of cryonics in the future has been written on extensively. There are very detailed treatments of what would be required. There is no sound reason to think it impossible; it's just a matter of sufficient control over chemistry and biochemistry. If you believe that there is some sound reason that it is impossible, then publish a paper - it would be influential if correct, because it would demolish the work of much of the cryobiology community in their initiatives to create reversible cryopreservation of organs and tissues.

Here is the paper for this research by 21st Century Medicine: "Aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation":

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2015.09.003

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#12

Post by jacquesm »

reasonattlm wrote: post #11

The comments suggesting that this is unimportant are pretty silly. People have been objecting to cryonics on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to preserve fine structure, versus only having had a reasonable set of evidence to preserve fine structure. They have objected on the basis that proven methods of preservation in small scale tissue samples hadn't been rigorously demonstrated to work in large…

What a load of bull.

Cryopreservationist walks into a bar. Goes 'Hey, everybody, pay me $50 and I'll show you a fantastic trick, I take your watch, put it in a bag, smash it up with a hammer, then open the bag and out comes your watch'. Fascinated a number of patrons sign up and pay their $50, hand over their watches.

Audible gulps as the watches go into a nice silver velvety bag and a very large hammer smashes down on the bag with the bar serving as temporary anvil.

The bag with the remains of the watches gets carefully pocketed and some of the money goes towards ordering a round of drinks for everybody.

So, how about my watch, asks one of the people that handed over his watch and his money. "Oh, that's the hard part, I haven't really studied that yet, come back in a few 100 years and I might have your watch again. But I'm getting better at smashing watches, that's for sure."

> The point is that we could be saving lives, and we are not, largely because of irrational objections that are not really based on technological or scientific positions, but grasp at a those positions as a shield for the real nebulous feelings on the matter.

What makes you believe that we could be saving lives?

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#13

Post by MikeNomad »

jacquesm wrote: post #9
wodencafe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit insulting of you, to presume that anyone who forms an opinion of Cryonics beyond "It's Quack Science" is only interested in "living forever", and not to be taken seriously. The essence of your argument is circular: it doesn't work because it's quack science, and it's quack science because it doesn't work - but it doesn't matter, because you're going to die anyway. What a cop out. One would think you got…

> One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old VHS of "The Re-Animator" That's a bit insulting of you. And to answer, no, I get my information from reading articles such as those linked, hence my comment on it. I've seen enough of the groups pushing these kind of pieces to see them as no better than religious groups selling 'the afterlife' and associated goodies with zero chance of actual…

"It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original."

And that science will not happen until we have (among several things) the ability to stabilize a brain sufficiently (when no longer being used for its original purpose) to have a very high resolution scan performed and stored.

I would think getting this first part correct would be of the utmost importance. Scan resolutions will continue to improve for any number of reasons beyond this application.

It would appear that the primary subject of the OP is both quite relevant, and an important building block, allowing research to move further along this particular approach.

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#14

Post by jacquesm »

MikeNomad wrote: post #13
jacquesm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old VHS of "The Re-Animator" That's a bit insulting of you. And to answer, no, I get my information from reading articles such as those linked, hence my comment on it. I've seen enough of the groups pushing these kind of pieces to see them as no better than religious groups selling 'the afterlife' and associated goodies with zero chance of actual…

"It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original." And that science will not happen until we have (among several things) the ability to stabilize a brain sufficiently (when no longer being used for its original purpose) to have a very high…

Yes, but we had this building block for a long time and to claim it is novel or even worthy of mentioning as a breakthrough is dishonest at a minimum.

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#15

Post by reacweb »

jacquesm wrote: post #12
reasonattlm wrote: post #11

The comments suggesting that this is unimportant are pretty silly. People have been objecting to cryonics on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to preserve fine structure, versus only having had a reasonable set of evidence to preserve fine structure. They have objected on the basis that proven methods of preservation in small scale tissue samples hadn't been rigorously demonstrated to work in large…

What a load of bull. Cryopreservationist walks into a bar. Goes 'Hey, everybody, pay me $50 and I'll show you a fantastic trick, I take your watch, put it in a bag, smash it up with a hammer, then open the bag and out comes your watch'. Fascinated a number of patrons sign up and pay their $50, hand over their watches. Audible gulps as the watches go into a nice silver velvety bag and a very large hammer smashes down…

we can't save lives, only postpone a bit the death.

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#16

Post by logfromblammo »

MikeNomad wrote: post #13
jacquesm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old VHS of "The Re-Animator" That's a bit insulting of you. And to answer, no, I get my information from reading articles such as those linked, hence my comment on it. I've seen enough of the groups pushing these kind of pieces to see them as no better than religious groups selling 'the afterlife' and associated goodies with zero chance of actual…

"It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original." And that science will not happen until we have (among several things) the ability to stabilize a brain sufficiently (when no longer being used for its original purpose) to have a very high…

Given the state of computing power, this might happen first:

  Become skilled at transplanting rat brains.
  Raise identical twin rats.
  Train one rat to run a maze.
  Sacrifice the maze-running rat.
  Stabilize its brain and scan it at high resolution.
  Use an organ printer to create a duplicate of the rat brain from the scan.
  Transplant the new brain into the living twin.
  Put the chimera rat in the maze.
  Observe the result.
  Laugh maniacally.

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#17

Post by imaginenore »

camillomiller wrote: post #5

What I find confusing is that (from a quick skim) there's no mention on how easy it would be to actually bring back the brain in, say, 50 years. Does this method make reviving brain tissue easier?

Do you expect an actual answer of what will be possible in 50 years?

It's just a logical development. Less damage => more chance of recovery.

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#18

Post by dnautics »

Aldehydes covalently bond and crosslink the proteins and irreversibly kill all of the fixed cells. There is zero hope that this provides a solution to cryopreservation except in the slice it up and look at it under the microscope sense.

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#19

Post by zimpenfish »

PZ Myers had a good take on this a few days ago - http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/29/how-can-you-pr...

> What I didn’t do with my experiments in aldehyde-preserved brains was claim that I was preserving all the information necessary for nervous system function. I was quite aware that I was chemically nuking all the proteins in the tissue; I was washing out most of the chemistry; I was destroying most of the physiological information to preserve a structural skeleton of what was there, so I could see the physical arrangement of the pieces. Nothing more.

Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize

#20

Post by lsparrish »

jacquesm wrote: post #12
reasonattlm wrote: post #11

The comments suggesting that this is unimportant are pretty silly. People have been objecting to cryonics on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to preserve fine structure, versus only having had a reasonable set of evidence to preserve fine structure. They have objected on the basis that proven methods of preservation in small scale tissue samples hadn't been rigorously demonstrated to work in large…

What a load of bull. Cryopreservationist walks into a bar. Goes 'Hey, everybody, pay me $50 and I'll show you a fantastic trick, I take your watch, put it in a bag, smash it up with a hammer, then open the bag and out comes your watch'. Fascinated a number of patrons sign up and pay their $50, hand over their watches. Audible gulps as the watches go into a nice silver velvety bag and a very large hammer smashes down…

Cool story, bro. Cryonics as it currently exists being profitable is 1) irrelevant to whether it works or not, and 2) a persistent myth.
Post reply on HN