Cryonics for uploaders: The Brain Preservation Prize has been won
The Brain Preservation Foundation (BPF) is announcing that the final phase of the Brain Preservation Prize has been won. This could soon enable new “cryonics for uploaders” options.
The Large Mammal Brain Preservation Prize has been won by the cryobiology research company 21st Century Medicine (21CM) and lead researcher Robert McIntyre. The same researchers won the preliminary Small Mammal Brain Preservation Prize two years ago.
Using a combination of glutaraldehyde fixation and cryogenic storage, the researchers have demonstrated a way to preserve a brain’s connectome — the 150 trillion synaptic connections that are presumed to encode memory and the whole mind — for centuries-long storage.
The procedure used, known as Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation (ASC), consists of perfusing the brain with glutaraldehyde and cryoprotectant prior to cryogenic storage.
Extensive 3D electron microscopy studies have examined the quality of connectome preservation following rewarming from cold storage of a pig brain, comparable to a human brain in size, preserved with ASC.
The results were evaluated by BPF President Ken Hayworth and Princeton neuroscience professor Sebastian Seung, author of “Connectome: How the Brain’s Wiring Makes Us Who We Are,” with the collaboration of other qualified neuroscientists.
The quality of brain preservation obtained via the ASC procedure is, according to Ken, simply amazing, and equivalent to that used in state-of-the-art connectome research. An ASC-preserved brain is expected to retain most of its molecular-level information. If so, future technology may permit scanning an ASC-preserved brain for mind uploading. The BPF announcement states:
“A growing number of scientists and technologists believe that future technology may be capable of scanning a preserved brain’s connectome and using it as the basis for constructing a whole brain emulation, thereby uploading that person’s mind into a computer controlling a robotic, virtual, or synthetic body.
The Brain Preservation Prize challenged the scientific community to develop a ‘bridge’ to that future mind uploading technology.”
In pre-announcement email to the BPF Advisory Board, on which I am honored to serve, Ken said:
“Let that sink in… ASC, if properly applied TODAY, could preserve the information content of a human brain for indefinitely-long storage.”
See Ken’s awesome video presentation titled “Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation is cryonics for uploaders.”
In a 2010 post, republished in part by the Cryonics Institute, I introduced the phrase “cryonics for uploaders,” and I am honored to see it used by Ken and the BPF.
ASC can be seen as next-generation cryonics, but also as an alternative form of cryonics. In fact, ASC preservation is not meant for future biological revival of the original organic body, but for future non-biological (post-biological) revival as an upload.
“Glutaraldehyde fixation does a provably better job than cryonics at preserving precisely those structures that encode memory and personal identity,” reads one of Ken’s presentation slides. Cryonics for uploaders, indeed.
See also Ken’s recent essay titled “Vitrifying the Connectomic Self: A case for developing Aldehyde Stabilized Cryopreservation into a medical procedure,” which includes a short near-future science fiction story that explains simply and clearly how cryonics for uploaders would work.
Next steps
The question is, what now?
In “Letter of support for Aldehyde Stabilized Cryopreservation to be developed into a medical procedure,” Ken says:
“I believe it is the responsibility of the scientific and medical community to develop ASC into a reliable medical procedure as soon as possible.”
The BPF is likely to play a key role in this process. McIntyre co-founded the startup Nectome to continue developing ASC as operational medical technology. Established cryonics organizations like Alcor and Cryonics Institute, or new cryonics organizations, could take a leading role and offer ASC preservation services as soon as possible.
Ken is persuaded that the right strategy is not to rush, and take the time and all necessary steps to develop ASC as a quality-controlled clinical procedure (before death) within the mainstream medical system. He sent me this comment:
“The BPF will NEVER become a service provider. Its mission is to spur scientific and medical research and to make sure that any offering of preservation services is actually meeting high standards, i.e. verified connectome preservation on a case-by-case basis.
Robert’s company Nectome will likely be offering ASC services eventually. According to the time line on their website it looks like they are targeting 2020 or 2021 (if I am interpreting it correctly). I have explicitly warned Robert about offering services prematurely to prevent a backlash from the scientific and medical communities. There are very real scientific questions that still need to be studied regarding ASC. For example, how well does ASC work after death? How well does ASC and -130degC storage work on human brains (can be tested on anatomical donations)? What is the protocol for quality control, both during and after the procedure? What about non-ideal cases, can the fixative perfusion and CPA perfusion steps be extended in time to deal with cases of vascular blockage? What are the proper steps to avoid ethical issues and to maintain transparency?
All of these questions MUST be addressed in an open medical publication PRIOR to any human service offering.
I believe that all of these question could be addressed over the next year or two with concerted effort within Robert’s company. We just need to hold his feet to the fire to make sure they are.
As for the existing cryonics providers, they seem mired in a model that refuses to engage the medical community directly. They avoid such engagement by starting the procedure after clinical death has been declared. It is true this has been forced upon them, but they also hide behind this requirement and blame every single problem that arises on this requirement. This has allowed them to botch many preservations with zero consequences, and in fact we don’t really have any idea if any of their patient’s connectomes are preserved since there is no real quality control deployed that could verify this. Publications? I hope you agree that this is unacceptable.
The solution, I believe, is to engage the medical community and try to play by its rules. If ASC truly is a potentially lifesaving procedure then it should be performed when it maximizes the chances of success. In most cases this means that ASC should be applied before death as a scheduled procedure for terminal patents. This is not going to happen without some seriously good quality control procedures in place, and this is a good thing. I believe that forcing ASC to be developed within the mainstream medical system will ultimately produce a far better procedure, one that will raise the chances of successful future revival enormously.
To put a fine point on this. If I were dying this month and Nectome, Alcor, or some other company offered me a FREE preservation I would refuse. I would refuse because I believe that none currently have quality protocols in place, so I would put the chances of it working at an unacceptably low level. More importantly, I would refuse because to accept would be putting other lives at risk. If there is a backlash from the medical and scientific community toward ASC (like the one premature cryonics offering created) then it could set the field of brain preservation back another decade or more. That would result in many lives lost and I wouldn’t want that on my conscience. Imagine waking up in 2230 only to learn that your rushed preservation set back brain preservation for decades, resulting in hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Those are the stakes of a premature offering.”
In 2010, immediately after the announcement of the Brain Preservation Prize, I was persuaded that next-generation brain preservation methods would not require expensive cryogenic storage facilities, which would permit offering low-cost brain preservation.
But ASC does require cryogenic storage. This should make ASC more appealing to the cryonics community, but also implies that ASC would probably be as expensive as current cryonics. The ASC preparation is, if anything, more complex, and the long term cold storage costs are the same.
Ken sent me this correction and comment:
“I also hope the cost will come down and soon. But I have little perspective on what that would take.
I disagree that ‘The ASC preparation is, if anything, more complex’. Because ASC uses perfusion fixation as its first step it avoids the main complications of cryonics which has always been a delicate race to increase CPA concentration while simultaneously lowering temperature. The ASC procedure is simple by comparison — just do everything at room temperature and take as long as you need to ensure uniform fixation and CPA concentration. If it were performed as a scheduled procedure ASC would be very straightforward indeed.
That said, the main cost is likely to be the long-term cold storage. This could actually be higher than traditional cryonics storage because, as I understand it, tradition cryonics stores at liquid nitrogen temperature (-196 degrees C) instead of just below the vitrification temperature (approximately -130 degrees C). In my understanding, storage at the lower temperature produces cracks and should be unacceptable for this reason but is done to lower costs. An article by Brian Wowk goes through this issue in great detail. So we should assume that ASC brains will always be stored at an intermediate temperature to avoid cracks.
I think it is possible that a room temperature storage option will eventually be developed that can transition ASC-preserved brains to room temperature storage. For example, if a plastic embedding approach like Mikula’s was eventually developed then it should be straightforward to apply that to existing ASC-preserved brains. In this way the amortized costs would go down.
However, I think the real solution to cost is large numbers.”
I think it’s very important to try and bring cryonics costs down. I am a life member of the Cryonics Institute, and I used to have a life insurance policy to cover cryonic suspension. But then I lost my insurance policy when I moved from one country to another, and didn’t take a new one because it was too expensive. Many others are in the same situation, and cryonics is still too expensive to attract large numbers, therefore an intermediate cost reduction step is needed.
Beam me to the stars
Having said that, I would certainly sign up for ASC brain preservation if I had the money. Becoming an immortal upload and going to the stars, what could be more wonderful than that? But the thing is, I don’t have the money.
Also, I am 60, and I am not sure quality-controlled ASC will be deployed within the mainstream medical system in time — especially because I am persuaded that “to engage the medical community and try to play by its rules” would take decades. I’m afraid I have little esteem for the mainstream scientific and medical establishment, which is dominated by ideologically biased bureaucracies and vulnerable to political influences.
My way to cope with the certainty (or, after this announcement, let’s say very high probability) of death is hoping in some sort of naturally occurring afterlife, or technological resurrection in the far future, or some combination thereof. Please read the Turing Church website if you are interested in these things, and watch my most recent talk.
But it would be great to come back to life as a post-biological uploaded mind, and experience first-hand the wonders of the next few centuries. Now, all those who are young enough and wealthy enough have a chance.
I am persuaded that, IF the connectome (as it is currently defined) encodes memory and the whole conscious mind, which is the current consensus in the neuroscience community, then ASC brain preservation followed by mind uploading should work.
The only scientific argument that I can see against ASC’s ability to preserve the information content of the brain is the possibility that unknown physics could play a strong fundamental role in how the brain’s wetware generates (or interacts with) the conscious mind. If so, then we’ll have to go back to the drawing board, but most neuroscientists consider these ideas as fringe “quantum mysticism.”
Upcoming discussion in Second Life
Two years ago, after the announcement that the preliminary Small Mammal Brain Preservation Prize had been won, I organized a Turing Church meeting in Second Life with Ken, Alcor CEO Max More, Alcor co-founder Linda Chamberlain, Natasha Vita-More, and many others. Ken and Max led a honest and intense discussion.
I am now trying to organize a follow-up meeting including the same participants, with high quality video recording this time. Everyone will be invited, stay tuned.
Top image from Wikimedia Commons, brain scan image from the BPF.
