See also the scientists' open letter on cryonics, which is old enough to have had many homes online over the years, but is now here: http://www.evidencebasedcr

See also the scientists' open letter on cryonics, which is old enough to have had many homes online over the years, but is now here: http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter-on-cryonics/ http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter-... You might also look at the Alcor FAQ for scientists: http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm http://www.alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm Some of the ongoing information generated by the Brain Preservation Foundation's technology prize competition is also interesting. http://www.brainpreservation.org/competitors/ http://www.brainpreservation.org/competitors/ The perspective of the BPF folk is perhaps a useful calibration point for those coming into this as a new topic; they are critical of cryonics for some detailed technical reasons, with plenty of room for debate, think that plastination should be developed as an alternative technology, but are firm supporters of the concepts of brain preservation and the evidence to date for fine structure preservation. For example, see this response to an earlier and very shoddy article critiquing cryonics at the Technology Review: http://www.brainpreservation.org/ken-hayworths-personal-response-to-mit-technology-review-article/ http://www.brainpreservation.org/ken-hayworths-personal-resp...