I’m sure that many of you are familiar with the concepts of cryonics; the careful low-temperature preservation of the body after death with the hope that future medical technology will find a way to repair both the damage that killed you and the damage of vitrification. If you want to learn more about the science and practice of cryonics, the Alcor website is a good place to start.
The question before us today: suppose a research team manages to reliably restore cryosuspended mice and demonstrate, say, a healthy set of mice born eleven years ago, but that spent ten of those years cryosuspended and not aging. Would that merit a payout from the MPrize fund – recalling that the MPrize is very deliberately method agnostic when it comes to how results are achieved?
This is something of a contentious question, but this set of circumstances seems quite unlikely to arise. I’ll throw my hat into the ring to say that, comparing the relative levels of interest and investment in cryonics and serious anti-aging research, it looks far more likely we’ll have eleven-year-old mice through rejuvenation therapies before we have reliable resucitation of cryosuspended mammals.
If you have opinions on the topic, have at it – that’s what the comments are for.