Society for Cryobiology statements on cryonics

I’ve managed to find out more about the Society for Cryobiology 1982 by-law barring cryonicists. This is just the documents; I may comment on them in a later post. Everything here comes from Alcor’s website; I didn’t find any other sources, but links of course welcome.

Section 2.04, Denial of Membership and Discipline of Members, reads in full as follows:

Upon a two-thirds vote of the Governors in office, the Board of Governors may refuse membership to applicants, or suspend or expel members (including both individual and institutional members), whose conduct is deemed detrimental to the Society, including applicants or members engaged in or who promote any practice or application which the Board of Governors deems incompatible with the ethical and scientific standards of the Society or as misrepresenting the science of cryobiology, including any practice or application of freezing deceased persons in the anticipation of their reanimation. Every member whose suspension or expulsion is under consideration shall be given written notice thereof at least fourteen (14) days before the vote on such suspension or expulsion, which notice shall state the grounds for the proposed action of the Board of Governors, and such member may petition the Board of Governors in writing before the vote.

source

This policy statement accompanies the by-law:
Society for Cryobiology

Policy Statement

The Society for Cryobiology has received inquiries regarding the policy of the Society toward the practice of freezing human cadavers in anticipation of eventual reanimation.

The Society recognizes and respects the well established freedom of individuals to hold and express their own opinions and to act, within lawful limits, according to their beliefs. Preferences regarding disposition of the dead are clearly a matter of personal choice and, therefore, inappropriate subjects of Society policy.

The Society does, however, take the position that cadaver freezing is not science. The knowledge necessary for the revival of whole mammals following freezing and for bringing the dead to life does not currently exist and can come only from conscientious and patient research in cryobiology, biology, chemistry, and medicine. The act of freezing a dead body and storing it indefinitely on the chance that some future generation may restore it to life is an act of faith, not science.

source

Under threat of litigation from Mike Darwin, the final statement was considerably toned down; I include also earlier drafts that are at greater length. This is the draft of 1981-09-04:
Society for Cryobiology

Policy Draft: Cadaver Freezing

The Board of Governors of the Society for Cryobiology has received inquiries regarding the policy of the Society toward individuals and organizations engaged in the long-term, low temperature storage of human cadavers in anticipation of eventual reanimation.

The Board recognizes and respects the well-established freedom of individuals to hold and express their own opinions and to act, within lawful limits, according to their beliefs. Preferences regarding disposition of the dead are clearly a matter of personal belief and, therefore, inappropriate subjects of Society policy.

The Board also recognizes that the goals of cryobiology include not only achieving an understanding of freezing injury and its avoidance but also applying this knowledge to the preservation of cells, tissues, organs, and organisms. A future achievement may well be successful mammalian cryopreservation. However complex the social consequences of such a development might be, this is no basis for discouraging research in cryobiology. The cryopreservation of biological systems remains a legitimate scientific endeavor which the Society for Cryobiology is chartered to support.

Current understanding in cryobiology is at best fragmentary. Many cells and tissues are refractory to cryopreservation by the best available techniques. There is no confirmed report of successful cryopreservation of an intact animal organ. It can be stated unequivocally that mammalian cryopreservation cannot be achieved by current technology.

Nonetheless, certain organizations and individuals are advocating that persons be frozen subsequent to death on the premise that science may ultimately develop the capability both to reverse the injury of freezing and revive the cadaver. The Board does not choose to involve itself in a discussion of the degree of remoteness of this possibility. The Board does, however, take the position that cadaver freezing is not an experimental procedure from which anything can be learned. The knowledge necessary for revival of whole animals following freezing and for revival of the dead will come not by freezing cadavers but from conscientious and patient research in cryobiology, biology, chemistry, and medicine. The sole motivation for freezing cadavers today is the remote hope on the part of the individuals that this may be a means of avoiding death. It is an exercise in faith, not science. Furthermore, to encourage individuals to invest many tens of thousands of dollars in post-mortem freezing with the implication of ultimate reanimation borders more on fraud than either faith or science.

The Board finds human cadaver freezing to be at this time a practice devoid of scientific or social value and inconsistent with the ethical and scientific standards of the Society. The Board recommends to the Society that membership be denied to organizations or individuals actively engaged in this practice.

source

And three more drafts:
[The following are drafts of a proposed policy statement on “cadaver freezing” to be issued by the Society for Cryobiology. We understand that the first two drafts were authored by Dr. Harold Meryman. The third revision is authored by Dr. David Pegg.]

POLICY DRAFT: CADAVER FREEZING

The Board of Governors of the Society for Cryobiology has received inquiries regarding the policy of the Society toward individuals and organizations engaged in the long-term, low temperature storage of human cadavers in anticipation of eventual reanimation.

The Board recognizes and respects the well-established freedom of individuals to hold and express their own opinions and to act, within lawful limits, according to their beliefs. Preferences regarding the disposition of the dead are clearly a matter of personal belief and, therefore, inappropriate subjects of Society policy.

The Board also recognizes that the goals of cryobiology include not only achieving an understanding of freezing injury and its avoidance but also applying this knowledge to the preservation of cells, tissues, organs, and organisms. a future achievement may well be successful mammalian cryopreservation. However complex the social consequences of such a development might be, this is no basis for discouraging research in cryobiology. The cryopreservation of biological systems remains a legitimate scientific endeavor which the Society for Cryobiology is chartered to support.

Current understanding in cryobiology is at best fragmentary. Many cells and tissues are refractory to cryopreservation by the best available techniques. There is no confirmed report of successful cryopreservation of an intact animal organ. It can be stated unequivocally that mammalian cryopreservation cannot be achieved by current technology.

Nonetheless, certain organizations and individuals are advocating that person be frozen subsequent to death on the premise that science may ultimately develop the capability both to reverse the injury of freezing and to revive the cadaver. The Board does not choose to involved itself in a discussion of the degree of remoteness of this possibility. The Board does, however, take the position that cadaver freezing is not science.
Freezing and indefinitely storing a cadaver is not an experimental procedure from which anything can be learned. The knowledge necessary for the revival of whole animals following freezing and for reviving the dead will come not by freezing cadavers but from conscientious and patient research in cryobiology, biology, chemistry, and medicine. The sole motivation for freezing cadavers today is the remote hope on the part of individuals that this may be a means of avoiding death. it is an exercise of faith, not of science. Furthermore, to encourage individuals to invest many tens of thousands of dollars in post-mortem freezing with the implication of ultimate reanimation borders more on fraud than either faith or science.

The Board finds human cadaver freezing to be at this time a practice devoid of scientific or social value and inconsistent with the ethical and scientific standards of the Society. The Board recommends to the Society that membership be denied to organizations or individuals actively engaged in this practice.

4 September 1981

PROPOSED STATEMENT

The Board of Governors of the Society for Cryobiology has received inquiries regarding the policies of the Society towards the Cryonics Society, the Life Extension Society and other groups whose objectives included the cryopreservation of the human body.

The Board recognizes and respect the well established freedom of individuals to hold their own opinions regarding death and their right to select such tactics as they may choose to deal with it. That any individual should consider cryopreservation as an alternative to conventional death is a matter of personal belief rather than science and is no more a matter for Society concern than any other individual faith or philosophy.

On the other hand, in light of current scientific understanding of freezing injury to cells and tissues, even in the presence of cryopreservatives, the Board finds unequivocally that the prospects of reanimation of a cryopreserved human, particularly a legally dead human, are zero. The Board also finds specious the argument that science can ultimately find a way to reverse both freezing injury and the cause of death. We believe that the prospects for the physical and mental reanimation of humans frozen by current technology are nil.

The Board recommends to the Society that it adopt an absolute and unequivocal position in opposition to the current practice of human body freezing. In particular, we deplore the practice of cryopreservation for hire which, in view of the implied promise of eventual reanimation, we consider an act more of fraud than of faith.

Membership in the Society for Cryobiology shall be denied to organizations or individuals actively endorsing or engaging in the practice of human body freezing.

(If the Board approves this policy, it should be ratified by the membership at the next meeting.)

SUGGESTED REVISION OF STATEMENT ON BODY FREEZING

DAVID PEGG 31/3/82

The Board of Governors of the Society for Cryobiology has received enquiries regarding policies of the Society towards the Cryogenic Society, the Life Extension Society, and other groups whose objective includes the cryopreservation of the human body.

The Board recognizes and respects the freedom of individuals to hold their own opinions regarding death and their right to select such procedures as they may choose to deal with it. That any individual should consider freezing as an alternative to burial or cremation is a matter of personal belief rather than science and is no more a matter for Society concern than any other individual faith or philosophy.

However, some cryonics groups do not restrict themselves to the view that freezing is an alternative to burial or cremation. They also state or strongly imply that there is a finite possibility that the frozen corpse could some day be reanimated. This view is properly subject to scientific judgement. The Board of the Society for Cryobiology finds that there is no adequate experimental basis for this belief, and in light of current scientific understanding of freezing injury in cells and tissues, even in the presence of cryo-preservatives, it is the Board’s scientific judgement that the prospects for re-animation of a frozen human, particularly a legally dead human, are infinitesimally low. Accordingly, we oppose and deplore the practice of human body freezing for hire which in view of the implied promise of eventual re-animation, we consider to be at best an act of scientifically unfounded optimism, and at worst an act of fraud.

source

The vote:

Adopt the policy statement of cryonics      In favor     Opposed
as approved by the Society's Board of       --------     -------
Governors                                      93%          7%

Approve the adoption of proposed bylaws        92%          8%

The turnout for the vote was judged very good with 46% of the Society's 
approximately 395 members voting.

source

Add post to: Delicious Reddit Slashdot Digg Technorati Google
(already: 2) Comment post

Comments

15.02.2010 10:46 David Gerard

Threatening scientists who are about to speak out against your science is generally excellent and convincing evidence … that you’re a pseudoscientist.

15.02.2010 22:07 Paul Crowley

Here’s how Alcor describe it, reproduced without comment:

Cryonicists also became intolerant of any public assertion on the part of cryobiologists that cryonics or its practitioners were engaged in fraud. Communications were sent apprising the Society that assertions that cryonics was fraud constituted both a serious criminal and civil allegation and that appropriate legal action would be taken if such allegations continued (cf. Series of letters from Robert Ettinger and Michael Darwin sent to the Society in the mid 1980’s: specifically Letter from M.G. Darwin to H.T. Meryman dated 21 April, 1982). As a result, by and large, allegations of fraud ceased.

16.02.2010 0:50 Luke Parrish

David, accusing someone of fraud is materially different from questioning their science.

Fraud is a legal term that means people are being deceived into losing money. Unless there is proof or strong evidence for this, claims that it “borders on fraud” serve no informative purpose.

16.02.2010 12:19 David Gerard

Luke, threatening scientists with lawsuits for questioning the science behind your business selling an exceedingly pricey product is a big red flashing sign saying <b>”PSEUDOSCIENCE”</b>. No two ways about it.

16.02.2010 15:41 Luke Parrish

Calling it fraud is going beyond questioning the science.

16.02.2010 15:48 David Gerard

Pseudoscientists and businesses running on pseudoscience pull this sort of rubbish all the time. That’s why it’s a BIG RED FLAG.

16.02.2010 15:58 Paul Crowley

Capital letters and writing things in red don’t actually make your case stronger, you know. Pseudoscientists also breathe and wear shoes, but they aren’t big red flags.

Do you really believe that a non-pseudoscientific business, accused of actual fraud by a major body in a related area, would be very unlikely to threaten to sue?

17.02.2010 10:55 Paul Crowley

Note that after a long discussion David has toned down the writing in the RationalWiki which used to argue that threatening to sue over the allegation of fraud is evidence of pseudoscience. He writes:

FWIW — on consideration, I’ve taken out the bit where I suggest that threatening to sue suggests they’re pseudoscientists, and just left it at the bare fact that they did, because of the use of the word “fraud” — David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

16.02.2010 15:50 Paul Crowley

Nonsense. Litigation was only threatened for the use of the word “fraud”. There was no attempt to pretend that legitimate questions about science constituted allegations of fraud, as there is with the BCA/Singh case; the specific bone of contention was the use of the word “fraud” in relation to the core business of Alcor. Hardly a business on the planet would not threaten to sue if they learned that you planned to brand them fraudsters as publically as possible.

Comment post