[Link] Persistence of Long-Term Memory in Vitrified and Revived C. elegans worms

Rangi

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2014.1636

This is a paper published in 2014 by Natasha Vita-More and Daniel Barranco, both associated with the Alcor Research Center (ARC).

The abstract:

Can memory be retained after cryopreservation? Our research has attempted to answer this long-standing question by using the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans), a well-known model organism for biological research that has generated revolutionary findings but has not been tested for memory retention after cryopreservation. Our study’s goal was to test C. elegans’ memory recall after vitrification and reviving. Using a method of sensory imprinting in the young C. elegans we establish that learning acquired through olfactory cues shapes the animal’s behavior and the learning is retained at the adult stage after vitrification. Our research method included olfactory imprinting with the chemical benzaldehyde (C₆H₅CHO) for phase-sense olfactory imprinting at the L1 stage, the fast cooling SafeSpeed method for vitrification at the L2 stage, reviving, and a chemotaxis assay for testing memory retention of learning at the adult stage. Our results in testing memory retention after cryopreservation show that the mechanisms that regulate the odorant imprinting (a form of long-term memory) in C. elegans have not been modified by the process of vitrification or by slow freezing.

It seems that you are trying to argue that there is some sort of conspiracy by cryobiologists to prevent cryonicists from publishing in high-impact journals.

If I understand correctly, the Society for Cryobiology officially bans its members from practicing or endorsing cyonics (defined as the cryopreservation of human corpses for the purpose of reanimation), but it has no position about preventing people associated with cryonics organization from publishing research.

If you want to claim that cryobiologists are covertly suppressing research by cryonicists by lobbying journal editors or abusing the peer review system, I would say that this is a very serious accusation of professional misconduct and you should not make it unless you can back it with evidence.

some sort of conspiracy by cryobiologists to prevent cryonicists from publishing...the Society for Cryobiology officially bans its members from practicing or endorsing cyonics

Yes. Some sort of conspiracy. I don't know why anyone would think that. What an odd thing to think.

it has no position about preventing people associated with cryonics organization from publishing research.

'Comrades, good news. You are free to research and publish anything you want about capitalist economics, as long as it's negative and does not endorse or practice it. Let 100 flowers bloom!'

I would say that this is a very serious accusation of professional misconduct and you should not make it unless you can back it with evidence.

Are you arguing that despite bitter hatred and an astonishing policy outright banning cryonics, this has zero influence on the notoriously politicized, inconsistent, random, risk-averse scientific publication process which has been amply documented to settle for lowest common denominators, punish ambitious work, express peer reviewers' personal prejudices in discriminating against minorities, conservatives, etc? You think that somehow cryonics papers will be an exception to all this, will get a free pass and be fairly and impartially evaluated by its sworn enemies?

I don't see how experiments on worms would have anything to do with it.

Now you are playing dumb. We are talking about chilling effects, and there are not that many cryobiologists (or cryonicists, for that matter). Everyone has gotten the message sent by the ban.

Oh you're right. And in the related news, global warming doesn't exist, evolution is a hoax, vaccines cause autism, etc...

What on earth are you talking about? The ban is right there in the bylaws. I don't need to misinterpret any hacked emails to talk about it or make up data like Wakefield did and the anti-vaxers do. You seem to be blinded by the phrase 'conspiracy theory'. Small groups organize all the time to promote or criticize particular theories in science, and even you admit the existence of the ban and hostility to cryonics; to paraphrase Patrick Henry, if that be conspiracy theorizing, make the most of it!

The ban's obvious rationale is that cryobiologists believe that cryonics is a pseudo-scientific practice and they don't want the reputation of their field to be tarnished by association with cryonics. You seem to claim that the ban is a matter of personal or tribal hatred

A lot of people do have very emotional reactions to cryonics, but I don't need to prove it's personal or tribal hatred, just point out that any papers to do with cryonics are not going to be treated the same. Whether the peer reviewer believes cryonics is absurd and the work must be wrong and is just searching for an excuse to reject it, or whether they personally hate Mike Darwin because he said something mean to them 40 years ago, doesn't make a difference.

As I said, this is a very serious allegation and it should be backed by evidence.

Please see the citations about the many serious flaws which have been demonstrated in peer review. Bias is the default. If you believe that peer reviews of cryonics papers will be shining exceptions, that should be backed by evidence because that would be a truly remarkable and extraordinary claim.

Dismissing the lack of scientific publications in favor for your pet position by accusing mainstream scientists of being biased is an overly general argument

That they are biased is not in question. The difference is that things like anti-vaxers have been disproven time and again and often to be based on fraud or deception, and have no experimental evidence and are not simple extrapolations of current theories, whereas cryonics, while still unproven and highly speculative, is none of those. There's a difference between proto and pseudo science.

The ban is right there in the bylaws.

Again, the bylaws bans members of the Society for Cryobiology from practicing or endorsing cryonics, it does not mandate them to sabotage the publication of research by cryonicists. One thing does not necessarily imply the other.
The former is an unusual, perhaps controversial, but IMHO understandable rule that does not constitute professional impropriety, the latter would be a gross breach of scientific ethics. If you want to claim that cryobiologists are doing the latter anyway, then you need evidence.

just point

... (read more)

LESSWRONG
LW

LESSWRONG
LW

35

[Link] Persistence of Long-Term Memory in Vitrified and Revived C. elegans worms

35

35