I think it would teach us whether freezing and reviving with learning preserved was actually possible or not. This strikes me as important and useful information. That C.elegans has some inbuilt ability to survive freezing would confound it slightly, but I still think it's a necessary thing to at least look at.

I agree it would be useful. My wording was less charitable than it should have been. Still, the second test seems more definitive.

I really doubt the scientific exploitation of C.elegans is as hard as that would imply, compared to the numbers of mice and rats killed daily for science.

True, C. elegans experiments wouldn't be hard to do.

Has this experiment, or something like it, even been postulated anywhere in the past 20 years, or is it not as obvious to everyone else as it is to you and me?

There are lots of worm people and I don't know that much about the field. For all I know the experiment has already been done.

You should be a scientist!

That little? (I can believe it, though.)

As far as I know there are currently three labs in the world researching cryonics.

1) The de Wolf's and Ben Best, researching at the lab they made, Advanced Neural Sciences. Their budget is tiny, $20,000/yr (pdf). And this seems to be almost all private. But this is the best out there.

2) Joao Pedro de Magalhaes. His lab was just funded by a public fundraiser ($12,000) to do an RNA-sequencing experiment to learn about mechanisms of cryoprotectant toxicity.

3) Brian Wowk and Greg Fahy at 21CM. They invented M22 and have done most of the useful work over the past 10 years. And even their website says,

Although our research is of great interest to those who are interested in cryonics, 21st Century Medicine is not involved in cryonics.

So, compared to most other fields there is nobody researching this. Which annoys people like Mike Darwin and Ken Hayworth so much. This could work, but we don't know, and we as a society are hardly trying to find out.