Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Practitioner forecasts of technological progress in biostasis

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A forecasting exercise with 22 biostasis practitioners finds that synaptic connectivity is the most accepted surrogate biomarker of information preservation and that whole brain emulation is the most likely first revival method.

desk verdict Useful, self-aware first survey of biostasis practitioner forecasts, but the headline 'mammalian cryopreservation' timeline rests on a question that didn't say 'mammalian'. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17274 v2 pith:MG3P6L3T submitted 2025-07-23 q-bio.NC

Andrew T. McKenzie , Michael Cerullo , Navid Farahani , Jordan S. Sparks , Taurus Londoño , Aschwin de Wolf , Suzan Dziennis , Borys Wróbel
show 6 more authors
Alexander German Emil F. Kendziorra João Pedro de Magalhães Wonjin Cho R. Michael Perry Max More
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NC
keywords biostasiscryopreservationwholebrainemulationsynapticconnectivitysurrogatebiomarkerforecastingmolecularnanotechnologyinformation-theoreticdeath
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a collaborative forecasting exercise: 22 biostasis practitioners, mostly researchers and clinicians, were asked to estimate how well current preservation methods work, which biomarkers prove that a preserved brain still holds its information, and which future technology will first revive someone. The authors are trying to establish, from practitioners' own judgments, where the field stands and where it is heading, rather than from theory alone. The headline results are that synaptic connectivity, traceable at ultrastructural scale, is the most widely trusted surrogate biomarker; that inadequate preservation quality, geographic distance from a provider, and poor procedural execution are seen as the most probable failure modes; and that provably reversible cryopreservation of whole mammals is judged decades away, with humans later still. Among revival paths from current preservation methods, whole brain emulation is rated most likely to arrive first, though a quarter of respondents doubt it would be genuine revival. If these estimates are right, they give researchers, funders, and regulators a baseline for what the field itself believes is achievable and what needs fixing first.

What carries the argument

The instrument that carries the argument is a structured forecasting questionnaire in which practitioners give probability estimates (0-100%) and confidence-window timelines for defined milestones. Its central object is the surrogate biomarker concept: a measurable feature of preserved brain tissue, chiefly connectome traceability—the ability to follow neural processes from synapses back to their originating neurons in volume electron microscopy—that stands in for the unobservable property 'the information needed for revival is still present.' The companion concept is information-theoretic death, the point at which that information has been irretrievably lost. Together these define the field's quality metric and the failure modes that the survey asks respondents to price.

What would settle it

Two observations would settle it: a direct experiment showing that preserved synaptic connectivity does not track memory retention in mammals would break the surrogate-biomarker consensus, and a carefully reworded replication survey with explicit definitions and pre-registered scenarios that produced very different median estimates would show the pooled numbers were wording artifacts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a small but experienced practitioner community now converges on a concrete picture of biostasis: information needed for revival is primarily carried by neuronal connectivity and synaptic strength, so a measurable surrogate biomarker for preservation quality is the ability to trace synapses to their originating cells in 3D ultrastructural data. A majority of respondents (81%) endorsed connectivity-based memory encoding and connectome traceability as the most convincing standalone evidence that personal information survived; spatial molecular measurements and electrophysiology were each endorsed by 43%. On the practical side, respondents put the mean probability that even ideal-case current preservation would cause information-theoretic death at 38%, geographic delay at 36%, and poor execution at 35%. They rated provably reversible whole-mammal cryopreservation as a probable mid-century or later milestone and human reversible cryopreservation as mostly post-2100 or never, while whole brain emulation led the revival-feasibility rankings at 62% mean probability, followed by molecular nanotechnology at 53% and conventional cell repair at 23%.

Load-bearing premise

The whole exercise assumes that the 22 respondents interpreted shared words—'revival,' 'compatible,' 'provably reversible,' 'information-theoretic death'—in roughly the same way, so that averaging their numbers yields a meaningful group estimate rather than a blend of different questions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Research effort should concentrate on raising ideal-case preservation quality and on procedural reliability, since practitioners judge those as the most likely single causes of failure.
  • Funding bodies can treat connectome traceability and spatial molecular assays as the metrics most likely to be accepted as evidence of preservation quality.
  • Expectations that reversible human cryopreservation is imminent should be tempered: even the field's own practitioners place it beyond 2100 at high confidence, if ever.
  • Whole brain emulation and molecular nanotechnology, not cell-by-cell repair, are the revival paths the field considers most plausible, implying preservation methods should be optimized for eventual scanning and reconstruction.
  • The split on whether whole brain emulation counts as genuine revival means any clinical or regulatory use of WBE will have to confront unresolved questions of personal identity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If connectome traceability becomes the accepted quality gate, connectomics and volume electron microscopy infrastructure, rather than cryobiology alone, may drive biostasis protocol development.
  • A natural testable extension is to correlate preservation quality scores on the surrogate biomarker with memory retention in animal models; a positive result would harden the consensus, a negative one would collapse it.
  • Given the perceived compatibility of molecular nanotechnology with aldehyde-based preservation, aldehyde methods may remain competitive even if reversible cryopreservation milestones slip.
  • The substantial estimated probability of human extinction during the preservation period (mean ~32%) suggests biostasis planning implicitly depends on existential-risk mitigation, a connection the paper raises but does not develop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a collaborative forecasting exercise in which 22 biostasis practitioners (recruited through a conference and professional networks) answered a questionnaire on preservation quality biomarkers, failure modes in contemporary practice, preservation methods, timelines for reversible cryopreservation, and the feasibility of three revival technologies: conventional cell repair, molecular nanotechnology, and whole brain emulation. The headline findings are that synaptic connectivity is the most widely endorsed surrogate biomarker for information preservation; that inadequate preservation quality, geographic barriers, and poor procedural execution are the most likely failure modes; that provably reversible cryopreservation of whole mammalian organisms is believed to be decades away, with human cryopreservation even later; that whole brain emulation is considered the most likely first revival method; and that molecular nanotechnology is viewed as likely compatible with both cryopreservation and aldehyde-based preservation. The manuscript is transparent about its limitations and provides anonymized data and analysis code.

Significance. If interpreted cautiously, this paper provides a useful structured elicitation of opinions from a specific community that is otherwise underrepresented in the peer-reviewed literature. The authors openly discuss selection bias, social desirability bias, and question-wording issues, and they make their data and code publicly available. The main value is descriptive: the results can serve as baseline estimates for tracking how practitioner views evolve and for identifying where the field's attention is focused. However, the small non-random convenience sample (n=22) and the acknowledged ambiguities in several survey items mean the results should not be read as a representative consensus of the broader scientific community. The manuscript's claims about 'substantial consensus' and specific technological timelines should be scaled accordingly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Provably reversible preservation timelines, Figure 11] The abstract and Conclusions state that 'most respondents believe that provably reversible cryopreservation of whole mammalian organisms is most likely decades away,' but the survey item asked about 'a whole laboratory animal' without specifying 'mammalian,' and the text explicitly acknowledges this imprecision. Because the same section cites reversible cryopreservation of nematodes (Vita-More and Barranco, 2015) as already achieved, any respondent who interpreted 'laboratory animal' inclusively would place the milestone in the past or near past, biasing the cumulative distributions toward earlier windows and overstating the field's consensus about mammals specifically. This ambiguity is load-bearing for the first headline finding; the authors should either restrict the claim to the actual question wording, provide a sensitivity analysis excluding likely non-mammalian interpretations, or revise the abstract and conclusions to reflect the ambiguity.
  2. [Assessing preservation quality, Surrogate biomarkers] The abstract states that 'synaptic connectivity can serve as a reliable surrogate biomarker for information preservation quality,' but the survey question asked which biomarkers, if measured, would convince respondents that information has been preserved with >95% confidence. Only 81% of respondents selected neural connectivity, and 19% indicated that no surrogate biomarker could convince them. Endorsement as a convincing threshold is not the same as asserting that the biomarker is 'reliable'; the abstract overstates the result. The claim should be softened to something like 'the most widely accepted candidate surrogate biomarker,' consistent with the actual question.
  3. [Revival methods after surrogate biomarker preservation (MNT compatibility)] The abstract claims that molecular nanotechnology was 'compatible with both pure cryopreservation and aldehyde-based methods,' but the underlying question asked whether MNT 'would be compatible with the following preservation methods as they are available today,' and the authors themselves note that 'compatible' could be interpreted as structural preservation quality or as physical workability. Because the proportion of 'Very likely' responses differed noticeably between pure cryopreservation (38%) and ASC (57%), the ambiguity is not merely cosmetic: it changes what the percentages measure. The abstract and conclusions should carry the same caveat that appears in the text, or the compatibility claim should be presented as conditional on the respondent's interpretation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 12] The crossing of the 50% and 90% cumulative distribution lines is acknowledged in the text, but the figure itself should be corrected or annotated so that the crossing is not visually presented as an unexplained logical inconsistency.
  2. [Revival methods after surrogate biomarker preservation, self-assessed MNT knowledge] The sentence reporting the High self-assessed knowledge subgroup is internally contradictory: it says 'all five estimated it was "Very likely" to be compatible with both pure cryopreservation and ASC, and four out of five estimated it was "Very likely" to be compatible with pure cryopreservation.' The numbers cannot both be true as written; this should be corrected to state the intended comparison (e.g., all five chose 'Very likely' for ASC, four of five for pure cryopreservation).
  3. [Methods] The manuscript states that 'the questionnaire procedures followed the institutional policies of Apex Neuroscience' but does not indicate whether the survey was reviewed by an institutional review board or explain why such approval was not required; this detail should be added for methodological transparency.
  4. [Various figures and text] The number of respondents changes across questions (e.g., 22, 21, 20, 19) because respondents could skip items, but the denominators are not always stated in the figure captions or in the text near the reported percentages; listing the n used for each figure would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No equation-level or construction-level circularity: the paper's claims are straightforward summaries of anonymized survey responses, with no fitted parameters, derived quantities, or self-citation chains that force its conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims—practitioner consensus on synaptic connectivity as a surrogate biomarker, the three most likely failure modes, the timelines for provably reversible cryopreservation, and whole brain emulation being most likely to be developed first—are direct aggregates of 22 survey responses. There are no equations, fitted parameters, or derived predictions that could reduce to their inputs by construction. The questionnaire-ambiguity issues the paper itself flags (e.g., the 'whole laboratory animal' wording not specifying 'mammalian,' and the multiple readings of 'compatible' in the MNT question) are measurement-validity concerns, not circularity: the reported answers still reflect what respondents actually estimated, even if the question could be interpreted in more than one way. Self-citations appear, such as references to the authors' earlier biostasis roadmap (McKenzie et al., 2024b), but these are used for context and background, not as evidence for the survey findings. The authors also explicitly acknowledge selection bias, social desirability bias, and the highly speculative nature of long-horizon forecasts, which further shows that the results are presented as opinion data rather than as an independently derived prediction. Because no step in the chain defines, fits, or forces its own conclusion, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey does not introduce physical entities or fitted parameters. Its conclusions depend on the domain assumptions that expert opinions are informative, that the questionnaire captured the intended constructs, and that the sample represents the field.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Practitioner opinion is a meaningful source of information about future technological timelines.
    The entire study rests on the premise that subjective forecasts from a small, self-selected group can provide baseline estimates for the field.
  • domain assumption The questionnaire accurately operationalizes the intended concepts (e.g., information-theoretic death, revival, compatibility).
    The paper relies on respondents interpreting the questions as intended; the authors themselves note ambiguities in several questions.
  • domain assumption The sample of 22 respondents is sufficiently representative of the broader biostasis practitioner community.
    Selection bias is acknowledged as a limitation; if the sample is atypical, the findings may not generalize.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Practitioner forecasts of technological progress in biostasis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MG3P6L3T

@misc{pith2026250717274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Practitioner forecasts of technological progress in biostasis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MG3P6L3T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17274}
}
read the original abstract

Biostasis has the potential to extend human lives by offering a bridge to powerful life extension technologies that may be developed in the future. However, key questions in the field remain unresolved, including which biomarkers reliably indicate successful preservation, what technical obstacles pose the greatest barriers, and whether different proposed revival methods are theoretically feasible. To address these gaps, we conducted a collaborative forecasting exercise with 22 practitioners in biostasis, including individuals with expertise in neuroscience, cryobiology, and clinical care. Our results reveal substantial consensus in some areas, for example that synaptic connectivity can serve as a reliable surrogate biomarker for information preservation quality. Practitioners identified three most likely failure modes in contemporary biostasis: inadequate preservation quality even under ideal conditions, geographic barriers preventing timely preservation, and poor procedural execution. Regarding revival strategies, most respondents believe that provably reversible cryopreservation of whole mammalian organisms is most likely decades away, with provably reversible human cryopreservation expected even later, if it is ever achieved. Among revival strategies from contemporary preservation methods, whole brain emulation was considered the most likely to be developed first, though respondents were divided on the metaphysical question of whether it could constitute genuine revival. Molecular nanotechnology was viewed as nearly as likely to be technically feasible, and compatible with both pure cryopreservation and aldehyde-based methods. Taken together, these findings delineate current barriers to high-quality preservation, identify future research priorities, and provide baseline estimates for key areas of uncertainty.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    URL https://frozenfutures.substack.com/p/the-cryonics-survey-of-2022-part-5ed (accessed 4.9.24)

    Frozen Futures. URL https://frozenfutures.substack.com/p/the-cryonics-survey-of-2022-part-5ed (accessed 4.9.24). Mazur, A., Ayyadevara, S., Mainali, N., Patchett, S., Uden, M., Roa, R.I., Fahy, G.M., Shmookler Reis, R.J.,

    work page 2022

  2. [4]

    https://doi.org/10.17879/freeneuropathology-2025-6104 German, A., Akdaş, E.Y., Flügel-Koch, C., Fejtova, A., Winkler, J., Alzheimer, C., Zheng, F.,

    work page doi:10.17879/freeneuropathology-2025-6104 2025

  3. [6]

    Views on the most reliable perfusion route in ideal or non-ideal biostasis conditions. Bar plots show the number (and percentage) of respondents selecting whether they view the aortic perfusate route as the best (either feeling strongly or leaning towards this), the carotid with or without vertebral route as the best, or are unsure of which is the best ap...

    work page

  4. [7]

    nanobots

    Aldehyde-based preservation methods could not achieve this milestone without the development of molecular nanotechnology or a similarly powerful future technology, as aldehydes create cross-links that current technology cannot undo in a targeted enough manner. As a result, we exclusively ask these forecasting questions about pure cryopreservation approach...

    work page

  5. [8]

    WBE at least for people preserved before 2025,

    (McKenzie et al., 2024b) . Imagine at some point in the future that technology has advanced to the point that if these technologies will ever be practical, they are able to be developed. Also imagine that biostasis organizations have survived with patients maintained in preservation until then. Also put aside for the moment their desirability and other qu...

    work page 2025

  6. [15]

    Philosophers’ Imprint

    Philosophers on Philosophy: The 2020 Philpapers Survey. Philosophers’ Imprint

    work page 2020

  7. [16]

    Fluid preservation in brain banking: a review

    https://doi.org/10.3390/forensicsci5020016 McKenzie, A.T., Nnadi, O., Slagell, K.D., Thorn, E.L., Farrell, K., Crary, J.F., 2024a. Fluid preservation in brain banking: a review. Free Neuropathol 5, 5–10. https://doi.org/10.17879/freeneuropathology-2024-5373 McKenzie, A.T., Wowk, B., Arkhipov, A., Wróbel, B., Cheng, N., Kendziorra, E.F., 2024b. Biostasis: ...

    work page doi:10.3390/forensicsci5020016

  8. [17]

    Minds & Machines 25, 17–36

    Uploading and Branching Identity. Minds & Machines 25, 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-014-9352-8 Darwin, M.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s11023-014-9352-8

Show all 42 references
  1. [18]

    Rejuvenation Research 23, 193–206

    Ultrastructural Characterization of Prolonged Normothermic and Cold Cerebral Ischemia in the Adult Rat. Rejuvenation Research 23, 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2019.2225 Donaldson, T.,

    2019

  2. [20]

    Cryonics Magazine 2nd Quarter 2022, 15–23

    Cryostasis Revival: The Recovery of Cryonics Patients through Nanomedicine. Cryonics Magazine 2nd Quarter 2022, 15–23. Freitas, R.A.,

    2022

  3. [22]

    bioRxiv: The Preprint Server for Biology 2025.01.22.634384

    Functional recovery of adult brain tissue arrested in time during cryopreservation by vitrification. bioRxiv: The Preprint Server for Biology 2025.01.22.634384. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.22.634384 Harris, S.,

    2025 doi

  4. [23]

    https://doi.org/10.3998/phimp.2109 Cerullo, M.A.,

    doi

  5. [24]

    bioRxiv 2025.05.16.654254

    Accelerating Neuron Reconstruction with PATHFINDER. bioRxiv 2025.05.16.654254. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.16.654254 Kloner, R.A., King, K.S., Harrington, M.G.,

    2025 doi

  6. [25]

    Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 315, H550–H562

    No-reflow phenomenon in the heart and brain. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 315, H550–H562. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00183.2018 Krassner, M.M., Kauffman, J., Sowa, A., Cialowicz, K., Walsh, S., Farrell, K., Crary, J.F., McKenzie, A.T.,

    2018

  7. [26]

    Free Neuropathol 4, 4–10

    Postmortem changes in brain cell structure: a review. Free Neuropathol 4, 4–10. https://doi.org/10.17879/freeneuropathology-2023-4790 Marty, M.,

    2023 doi

  8. [27]

    The Cryonics Survey of 2022, part

    2022

  9. [29]

    Cryobiology 115, 104881

    Model biological systems demonstrate the inducibility of pathways that strongly reduce cryoprotectant toxicity. Cryobiology 115, 104881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2024.104881 McFadden, W.C., Walsh, H., Richter, F., Soudant, C., Bryce, C.H., Hof, P.R., Fowkes, M., Crar...

    2024

  10. [31]

    Cryobiology 71, 448–458

    Aldehyde-stabilized cryopreservation. Cryobiology 71, 448–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2015.09.003 McKenzie, A.T., Keberle, A., Minerva, F., Zeleznikow-Johnston, A., Harrow, J.,

    2015 doi

  11. [34]

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fmedt.2024.1400615 Merkle, R.,

    2024

  12. [40]

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-016-0261-6 Shcherbakova, L.N., Tel’pukhov, V.I., Trenin, S.O., Bashikov, I.A., Lapkina, T.I.,

    doi

  13. [41]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12710 Vita-More, N., Barranco, D.,

    Cryonics for all? Bioethics 34, 638–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12710 Vita-More, N., Barranco, D.,

    doi

  14. [42]

    Rejuvenation Res 18, 458–463

    Persistence of Long-Term Memory in Vitrified and Revived Caenorhabditis elegans. Rejuvenation Res 18, 458–463. https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2014.1636 White, J.B.,

    2014

  15. [43]

    Nondestructive Mind Uploading and the Stream of Consciousness. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4560723 Wiley, K.,

    doi

  16. [146]

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40478-019-0799-y McIntyre, R.L., Fahy, G.M.,

    doi

  17. [942]

    Structural brain preservation: a potential bridge to future medical technologies

    https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14090942 McKenzie, A.T., Zeleznikow-Johnston, A., Sparks, J.S., Nnadi, O., Smart, J., Wiley, K., Cerullo, M.A., de Wolf, 42 A., Minerva, F., Risco, R., Church, G.M., de Magalhães, J.P., Kendziorra, E.F., 2024c. Structural brain preservation: a p...

    doi

  18. [1969]

    incorporate appropriate RNA tapes into itself upon entry and release them on termination of repair

    White’s proposal was to use artificially constructed virus particles to introduce genetic repair programs into damaged cells. To preserve long-term memory content during cellular repair, he suggested that repair programs could “incorporate appropriate RNA tapes into itself upo...

    1977

  19. [1981]

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 78, 5275–5278

    Molecular engineering: An approach to the development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 78, 5275–5278. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.78.9.5275 Freitas, R.,

    doi

  20. [1986]

    Bull Exp Biol Med 102, 1553–1554

    Permeability of the blood-brain barrier for intravascular formaldehyde. Bull Exp Biol Med 102, 1553–1554. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00854688 Thau, T.,

    doi

  21. [1992]

    Med Hypotheses 39, 6–16

    The technical feasibility of cryonics. Med Hypotheses 39, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-9877(92)90133-w More, M.,

    doi

  22. [1994]

    , and Robert Freitas (R. A. Freitas, 2022, p

    2022

  23. [2008]

    Rejuvenation Res 11, 493–503

    Scientific justification of cryonics practice. Rejuvenation Res 11, 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2008.0661 Biostasis Week Conference (May 17-18) @ Vitalist Bay [WWW Document],

    2008

  24. [2011]

    Given the relative lack of cracking in brains compared to other organs, I doubt the value of ITS. However, I [chose] ITS because you specified no difference in cost or security

    We asked respondents: For cryopreservation-only methods, which storage approach do you currently favor for use, based on the publicly available evidence, neglecting cost and assuming equivalent security? 16 (73%) respondents answered ITS, 3 (14%) answered traditional liquid ni...

  25. [2015]

    As a result, it has been difficult to clearly identify synapses and trace their associated neurites. And without the ability to directly trace neurites, it is possible that potential structural damage due to ischemia, rapid osmotic shifts, cryoprotective agent toxicity, or oth...

    2015

  26. [2016]

    And the Large Mammal Prize, which was tested on pig brains, was officially won in 2018 (Wiley,

    2018

  27. [2018]

    Brain Preservation Foundation

    Letter of support for Aldehyde Stabilized Cryopreservation to be developed into a medical procedure [WWW Document]. Brain Preservation Foundation. URL https://www.brainpreservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/letterofsupportforasc_kennethhayworth_j an2018-signed.pdf (access...

    2018

  28. [2020]

    be them

    – might be more concerning if one does hold the view that an emulated version of them would “be them.” Suggestions for improvements in the field Increasing public interest and legitimacy Multiple respondents described the need to increase the scientific credibility and medical...

    2025

  29. [2022]

    This would include structural features such as the basic structure of dendritic spines and synapses. However, it is also possible that smaller substructural features, such as individual molecules or molecular complexes of the synaptic vesicle pools, active zones, or postsynapt...

    1994

  30. [2023]

    Mostly or fully expect that it would be revival and allow for continuity of experience

    We asked our respondents the following question: What do you think about the idea of whole brain emulation as a revival option for yourself? Imagine that it was done optimally – i.e. a full whole brain emulation, possibly using a type of neuromorphic computing if necessary – n...

    2015

  31. [2024]

    After a brief description, we asked respondents: With what likelihood do you think pretreatment approaches for reducing cryoprotectant toxicity will have a paradigm-shifting effect on human biostasis protocols by 2050, being considered by the research community (at that time) ...

  32. [2025]

    The sampling strategy used for the BPF prize was to: (a) first, examine the brain macroscopically (e.g. via gross examination of sections and/or x-ray imaging) to identify any regions that looked like they may have poor preservation, which would then be biopsied for imaging, a...

    2015

  33. [4455]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-48734-y Park, J., Papoutsi, A., Ash, R.T., Marin, M.A., Poirazi, P., Smirnakis, S.M.,

    doi

  34. [5372]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13029-0 Poo, M., Pignatelli, M., Ryan, T.J., Tonegawa, S., Bonhoeffer, T., Martin, K.C., Rudenko, A., Tsai, L.-H., Tsien, R.W., Fishell, G., Mullins, C., Gonçalves, J.T., Shtrahman, M., Johnston, S.T., Gage, F.H., Dan, Y., Long, J., Buzsáki, ...

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.