{"id":1190,"date":"2015-09-13T23:16:28","date_gmt":"2015-09-13T23:16:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/?p=1190"},"modified":"2015-09-15T22:51:18","modified_gmt":"2015-09-15T22:51:18","slug":"a-courageous-story-of-brain-preservation-dying-young-by-amy-harmon-the-new-york-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/a-courageous-story-of-brain-preservation-dying-young-by-amy-harmon-the-new-york-times\/","title":{"rendered":"A Courageous Story of Brain Preservation, “Dying Young” by Amy Harmon, the New York Times."},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t\t\t\t\n
\n\t\n
\n\n\t\n\t

The recent major media article by Amy Harmon brings to the public eye the potential of human cryopreservation and chemopreservation techniques to preserve the memories and\u00a0personal identity of individuals. We at the Brain Preservation Foundation have considered many\u00a0common counterarguments to this endeavor\u00a0(see below, and our \u5e38\u89c1\u95ee\u9898<\/a> \u548c \u514b\u670d\u5f02\u8bae<\/a>\u00a0backgrounders) and yet we still think it is a worthwhile idea to pursue. Please let us know your thoughts as well.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Yesterday, journalist Amy Harmon published <\/span>an article in the New York Times<\/em><\/span><\/a>, <\/span>“A Dying Young Woman\u2019s Hope in Cryonics and a Future.”<\/span><\/i> First of all, it is a tragic story about a woman, Kim Suozzi, who had an incredibly unfortunate diagnosis of cancer at a young age and was forced to make some very difficult decisions in a short time frame. The story of how she faced those decisions with great foresight and resolve, with the help of her partner Josh, her family, as well as the broader internet community, is deeply moving. We want to extend our condolences to everyone in Kim’s life for their terrible loss. We also want to stand in hope and solidarity with Josh and Kim that she may one day be reunited with those she loved, in a different and hopefully better world.<\/span><\/p>\n

When it comes to the specifics of Kim\u2019s life, we at the Brain Preservation Foundation (BPF) don\u2019t think it is our place to discuss individual brain preservation cases. Our focus, as you can find in our <\/span>mission statement<\/span><\/a>, is to try to advance scientific research on the viability of preserving individual memories and identity. This research still has many current unknowns, as the NYT article points out well, and there will be a long journey of scientific investigation ahead. Yet an increasing number of people think these unknowns deserve answers. We also want to help society have conversations about the social issues of choosing brain preservation in a more open and tolerant manner. <\/span><\/p>\n

Because this story has stimulated a lot of public discussion already, we want say a few words and invite a conversation here on our blog on the issues that have arisen in response to it. Many of the responses to the article have attacked the motivations and ethics of Ms. Suozzi. That\u2019s unfortunate, but it\u2019s also to be expected owing to the fact that the idea of brain preservation, as Ms. Harmon notes, involves numerous sensitive issues on which many of us already have strong views. To question our own views and assumptions on this topic, and to admit that others may make different choices (which may be good choices for them even if not necessarily for ourselves) takes a level of courage and evidence-orientation that we at BPF seek to encourage in our work and public outreach.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Photo<\/a>

Photos of Kim Suozzi, courtesy Josh Schisler.<\/p><\/div>\n

Although the primary interest of the BPF is technical research into brain preservation techniques and verification, our <\/span>social mission<\/span><\/a> maintains that for those who desire it, brain preservation may have a variety of positive <\/span>social benefits<\/span><\/a>. In our view, to denigrate an informed and reasonable decision that someone makes to preserve their brain at the end of their life, when existing medical technology has otherwise failed them, is both hurtful and self-centered. And as a beginning neuroscientist herself, Ms. Suozzi was certainly able to make an informed decision. There is early evidence to back the brain preservation choice for those who would make it today, as we chronicle here at BPF, and that choice makes sense at the present time to a small but growing subset of the population. If scientific evidence continues to build, and preservation procedures can be validated, then as costs come down, that group will likely grow.<\/span><\/p>\n

Among the more informed responses in the 500+ comments to the article<\/a>, and in similar discussions on Reddit, Twitter, and other\u00a0social media, much of the disagreement appears to come down to a few core differences in perspective. One difference\u00a0is that some people are more interested in\u00a0our current technical capabilities and procedural options (and limitations thereof) rather than in speculating about where current trends\u00a0may take us in the future. These individuals often have significant differences in the expected science, technological, and societal futures they find reasonable (or worthwhile) to imagine today.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another difference in perspective is whether mind uploading (transfer of our memories and mind to a computer) is possible. Some argue that\u00a0our memories or full identity may never be fully simulated by a computer.\u00a0Those individuals may expect they\u00a0would need to come back in a\u00a0biological form, in a society using\u00a0advanced nanotechnology (the molecular biology of our own\u00a0cells is a type of nanotechnology). Others doubt whether a\u00a0simulation would be “merely” a “copy” of you (eg, if\u00a0Star Trek<\/em> transporters existed, and those using them claimed to be the same at the other end, would you believe them?). Philosophers such as Derek Parfit have argued that what we usually think of as <\/span>personal identity would preserved<\/span><\/a> by a technology that allowed you to transport in time or space, and many at the BPF find this argument persuasive. See, for example, Ken Hayworth’s article “<\/span>Killed by Bad Philosophy<\/span><\/a>“. See also BPF Fellows Michael Cerrullo and Keith Wiley’s articles on this topic: <\/span>Part 1<\/span><\/a> \u548c <\/span>Part 2<\/span><\/a>. \u00a0Some people wouldn\u2019t mind if they only came back as a \u201ccopy\u201d for their loved ones and for society. Others already think of themselves as “copies”, since our\u00a0bodies copy our our cellular patterns every day, using\u00a0entirely new molecules, to keep us\u00a0alive. For some of those individuals, the brain preservation\u00a0choice\u00a0already makes sense. Perhaps the subtleties of the copy question will be settled by future cognitive science.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another\u00a0debate concerns the expected\u00a0level of detail of neurological emulation that will\u00a0be required to perform mind uploading.\u00a0As with many debates, some\u00a0disagreements involve different uses of the same words. For example, in <\/span>his book<\/span><\/a>, BPF Advisor and Princeton neuroscientist Professor Sebastian Seung defines the <\/span>connectome<\/span><\/i> as including both anatomical \u548c <\/em>functional connections between neurons<\/span>. On the other hand, the use of the term connectome in the scientific literature usually refers to mapping anatomical connections alone. \u00a0So for some neuroscientists, the concept of the connectome doesn\u2019t <\/span>further <\/span><\/i>include the particular states of molecules in the synapse that are known to be involved in learning and memory. In these cases, this level of detail is sometimes referred to as the <\/span>synaptome<\/span><\/i>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Among neuroscientists who are computationalists, those who think that a functional simulation of our brain\u2019s memories and identities can one day be done via computational neuroscience, many expect that detailed molecular information at the level of individual neurons (at least, key neurotransmitter and receptor densities) will be needed. This is a question many neuroscientists working in learning and memory are presently racing to try to answer. Some neuroscientists think that an anatomical connectome, as well as basic functional information (such as classification of cells into approximately 50\u2013200 types based on morphology), might be enough to achieve mind uploading. But most advocates of mind uploading expect some level of synaptome preservation will also be required. See BPF co-founder John Smart’s\u00a0Preserving the Self for Later Emulation<\/a><\/em>\u00a0for one view on the level of synaptic detail that may need to be preserved.\u00a0As\u00a0neuroscientific\u00a0understanding improves, BPF wants to make sure our existing brain preservation protocols do in fact preserve the necessary synaptic and molecular information at death.<\/span><\/p>\n

You can find more discussion about what level of detail may be needed in the Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap (<\/span>pdf<\/span><\/a>; see especially Table 2), as well as in recent BPF interviews with Princeton professor of psychology and neuroscience <\/span>Michael Graziano<\/span><\/a>, Dr. <\/span>Shawn Mikula<\/span><\/a> of the Max Planck Institute for Neurobiology, and Stanford neuroscientist <\/span>Bob Blum<\/span><\/a>. The <\/span>position of the BPF<\/span><\/a> is essentially that preservation of anatomical morphology is almost certainly required for successful mind uploading, and is likely one of the most difficult goals for any current brain preservation technology, therefore making it a critical measure of the quality of a preserved brain. <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, our surveys to date<\/a> have shown that the <\/span>cost <\/span><\/i>of brain preservation, to the individuals and families currently considering it, is the presently the most important factor for those contemplating the choice. If, in coming years, these procedures are confirmed to preserve memory in model organisms (if we \u201cbreak the code\u201d of long term memory storage, as many neuroscientists are trying to do today), then as science and technology continue to advance, the cost of brain preservation by both\u00a0chemical preservation and\u00a0cryopreservation should come down substantially.\u00a0<\/span>Chemical preservation may offer a particularly\u00a0low cost and simple option, if it can be scaled to work with human brains. Such decreases in cost may alter many individuals\u2019 calculations as to whether brain preservation is a good choice as the end of their lives approaches. At some point, if global social wealth continues to grow and preservation costs continue to drop, and if we confirm that these techniques preserve memories in model organisms, many more people may choose to be preserved, in all societies that allow this end of life choice. If\u00a0such confirmation occurs, we at BPF will do our best to ensure affordable and reliable brain preservation\u00a0options are\u00a0available to all of us, anywhere, who may\u00a0desire them\u00a0for ourselves, our loved ones, for science, or for a better future world. See our vision statement<\/a> for more.<\/span><\/p>\n

For readers who are interested in continuing this discussion, and in weighing in with additional thoughts on the topic, please reply in the comments, or <\/span>get in touch<\/span><\/a>. Furthermore, for those who would like to help the BPF in our work, here\u2019s a short list of <\/span>ways you can help<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

In conclusion, we would like to thank Ms. Harmon and the <\/span>New York Times<\/span><\/i> for having the courage to write an article that highlights this important and still poorly understood topic in such a lucid and fair way. Finally, we would like to thank everyone\u00a0who helped\u00a0Ms. Suozzi carry out her end of life choice to the best of their abilities, and Ms. Suozzi for her courage and thoughtfulness, and for being an inspiration to the growing number of people who choose to see the world and themselves in a similar way.<\/span><\/p>\n

Written by:\u00a0Andrew McKenzie & John M Smart<\/p>\n\n\t

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The recent major media article by Amy Harmon brings to the public eye the potential of human cryopreservation and chemopreservation techniques to preserve the memories and\u00a0personal identity of individuals. We at the Brain Preservation Foundation have considered many\u00a0common counterarguments to this endeavor\u00a0(see below, and our FAQ and Overcoming Objections\u00a0backgrounders) and yet we still think it [...]","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":1241,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,6,9,27],"tags":[],"coauthors":[26,25],"class_list":["post-1190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-brain-preservation","category-cryopreservation","category-cryonics","category-chemopreservation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1190","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1190"}],"version-history":[{"count":46,"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1190\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1253,"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1190\/revisions\/1253"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1241"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1190"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.brainpreservation.org\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}