ENDANGERED SPECIES

Species Profiles:
Africa

Antarctica

Asia

Australia

Central America

Europe

Hawaii

Middle East

North America

Oceania

South America

Donate

Find a Creature

Web Site Search

Featured Creature

EEC Home

FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME

MEMORY AND REALITY

About the FMS Foundation

FMSF Newsletter Archive

-->FMSF Frequently Asked Questions

Hypnosis

Multiple Personality

Legal Interests


Therapy Topics

Retractor Stories/Studies

Focus on Science

Some of our memories are true, some are a mixture of fact and fantasy, and some are false -- whether those memories seem to be continuous or seem to be recalled after a time of being forgotten or not thought about.
Then how can we know if our memories are true? The professional organizations agree: the only way to distinguish between true and false memories is by external corroboration.

(Recovered Memories: Are They Reliable?)
What could cause a person to believe sincerely in something that never happened? We have posted on this site both scientific views, derived from suggestibility and influence studies, and insights provided by retractors -- individuals who once accepted as true certain memories that they now believe to have been false.

(How to Believe the Unbelievable)(Why Believe That for Which There Is No Good Evidence?)
Does it matter if someone has a false belief about the past? Most of the time it doesn't. Sometimes, however, false beliefs cause great harm, not only to the people who hold them, but also to others. This site provides information about how some false beliefs about memory have seriously harmed the believers, their families and other innocent individuals.
What are false memories? Because of the reconstructive nature of memory, some memories may be distorted through influences such as the incorporation of new information. There are also believed-in imaginings that are not based in historical reality; these have been called false memories, pseudo-memories and memory illusions. They can result from the influence of external factors, such as the opinion of an authority figure or information repeated in the culture. An individual with an internal desire to please, to get better or to conform can easily be affected by such influences.
What is the recovered-memory controversy about? The information on this site focuses on the current controversy about the accuracy of adult claims of "repressed" memories of childhood sexual abuse that are often made decades after the alleged events, for which there is no external corroboration. The controversy is not about whether children are abused. Child abuse is a serious social problem that requires our attention. Neither is the controversy about whether people may not remember past abuse. There are many reasons why people may not remember something: childhood amnesia, physical trauma, drugs or the natural decay of stored information. The controversy is about the accuracy of claims of recovered "repressed" memories of abuse. The consequences profoundly affect the law, the way therapy is practiced, families and people's lives.Harrison Pope, Jr., M.D. informally discusses the controversy in an interview entitled, "Recovered Memories:" Recent Events and Review of Evidence.
An article from the Skeptical Inquirer of March 1995 also provides an overview of the problem:
Remembering DangerouslyElizabeth Loftus, Skeptical Inquirer (1995) 19 (2), p. 20.

ECONOMICS – Friedman was wrong

Who Was Milton Friedman?
By Paul Krugman
1.
The history of economic thought in the twentieth century is a bit like the history of Christianity in the sixteenth century. Until John Maynard Keynes published The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money in 1936, economics—at least in the English-speaking world—was completely dominated by free-market orthodoxy. Heresies would occasionally pop up, but they were always suppressed. Classical economics, wrote Keynes in 1936, "conquered England as completely as the Holy Inquisition conquered Spain." And classical economics said that the answer to almost all problems was to let the forces of supply and demand do their job.

But classical economics offered neither explanations nor solutions for the Great Depression. By the middle of the 1930s, the challenges to orthodoxy could no longer be contained. Keynes played the role of Martin Luther, providing the intellectual rigor needed to make heresy respectable. Although Keynes was by no means a leftist—he came to save capitalism, not to bury it—his theory said that free markets could not be counted on to provide full employment, creating a new rationale for large-scale government intervention in the economy.

Keynesianism was a great reformation of economic thought. It was followed, inevitably, by a counter-reformation. A number of economists played important roles in the great revival of classical economics between 1950 and 2000, but none was as influential as Milton Friedman. If Keynes was Luther, Friedman was Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. And like the Jesuits, Friedman's followers have acted as a sort of disciplined army of the faithful, spearheading a broad, but incomplete, rollback of Keynesian heresy. By the century's end, classical economics had regained much though by no means all of its former dominion, and Friedman deserves much of the credit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't want to push the religious analogy too far. Economic theory at least aspires to be science, not theology; it is concerned with earth, not heaven. Keynesian theory initially prevailed because it did a far better job than classical orthodoxy of making sense of the world around us, and Friedman's critique of Keynes became so influential largely because he correctly identified Keynesianism's weak points. And just to be clear: although this essay argues that Friedman was wrong on some issues, and sometimes seemed less than honest with his readers, I regard him as a great economist and a great man.

2.
Milton Friedman played three roles in the intellectual life of the twentieth century. There was Friedman the economist's economist, who wrote technical, more or less apolitical analyses of consumer behavior and inflation. There was Friedman the policy entrepreneur, who spent decades campaigning on behalf of the policy known as monetarism—finally seeing the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England adopt his doctrine at the end of the 1970s, only to abandon it as unworkable a few years later. Finally, there was Friedman the ideologue, the great popularizer of free-market doctrine.

Did the same man play all these roles? Yes and no. All three roles were informed by Friedman's faith in the classical verities of free-market economics. Moreover, Friedman's effectiveness as a popularizer and propagandist rested in part on his well-deserved reputation as a profound economic theorist. But there's an important difference between the rigor of his work as a professional economist and the looser, sometimes questionable logic of his pronouncements as a public intellectual. While Friedman's theoretical work is universally admired by professional economists, there's much more ambivalence about his policy pronouncements and especially his popularizing. And it must be said that there were some serious questions about his intellectual honesty when he was speaking to the mass public.

But let's hold off on the questionable material for a moment, and talk about Friedman the economic theorist. For most of the past two centuries, economic thinking has been dominated by the concept of Homo economicus. The hypothetical Economic Man knows what he wants; his preferences can be expressed mathematically in terms of a "utility function." And his choices are driven by rational calculations about how to maximize that function: whether consumers are deciding between corn flakes or shredded wheat, or investors are deciding between stocks and bonds, those decisions are assumed to be based on comparisons of the "marginal utility," or the added benefit the buyer would get from acquiring a small amount of the alternatives available.

It's easy to make fun of this story. Nobody, not even Nobel-winning economists, really makes decisions that way. But most economists—myself included—nonetheless find Economic Man useful, with the understanding that he's an idealized representation of what we really think is going on. People do have preferences, even if those preferences can't really be expressed by a precise utility function; they usually make sensible decisions, even if they don't literally maximize utility. You might ask, why not represent people the way they really are? The answer is that abstraction, strategic simplification, is the only way we can impose some intellectual order on the complexity of economic life. And the assumption of rational behavior has been a particularly fruitful simplification.

The question, however, is how far to push it. Keynes didn't make an all-out assault on Economic Man, but he often resorted to plausible psychological theorizing rather than careful analysis of what a rational decision-maker would do. Business decisions were driven by "animal spirits," consumer decisions by a psychological tendency to spend some but not all of any increase in income, wage settlements by a sense of fairness, and so on.

But was it really a good idea to diminish the role of Economic Man that much? No, said Friedman, who argued in his 1953 essay "The Methodology of Positive Economics" that economic theories should be judged not by their psychological realism but by their ability to predict behavior. And Friedman's two greatest triumphs as an economic theorist came from applying the hypothesis of rational behavior to questions other economists had thought beyond its reach.

In his 1957 book A Theory of the Consumption Function—not exactly a crowd-pleasing title, but an important topic—Friedman argued that the best way to make sense of saving and spending was not, as Keynes had done, to resort to loose psychological theorizing, but rather to think of individuals as making rational plans about how to spend their wealth over their lifetimes. This wasn't necessarily an anti-Keynesian idea—in fact, the great Keynesian economist Franco Modigliani simultaneously and independently made a similar case, with even more care in thinking about rational behavior, in work with Albert Ando. But it did mark a return to classical ways of thinking—and it worked. The details are a bit technical, but Friedman's "permanent income hypothesis" and the Ando-Modigliani "life cycle model" resolved several apparent paradoxes about the relationship between income and spending, and remain the foundations of how economists think about spending and saving to this day.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friedman's work on consumption behavior would, in itself, have made his academic reputation. An even bigger triumph, however, came from his application of Economic Man theorizing to inflation. In 1958 the New Zealand–born economist A.W. Phillips pointed out that there was a historical correlation between unemployment and inflation, with high inflation associated with low unemployment and vice versa. For a time, economists treated this correlation as if it were a reliable and stable relationship. This led to serious discussion about which point on the "Phillips curve" the government should choose. For example, should the United States accept a higher inflation rate in order to achieve a lower unemployment rate?

In 1967, however, Friedman gave a presidential address to the American Economic Association in which he argued that the correlation between inflation and unemployment, even though it was visible in the data, did not represent a true trade-off, at least not in the long run. "There is," he said, "always a temporary trade-off between inflation and unemployment; there is no permanent trade-off." In other words, if policymakers were to try to keep unemployment low through a policy of generating higher inflation, they would achieve only temporary success. According to Friedman, unemployment would eventually rise again, even as inflation remained high. The economy would, in other words, suffer the condition Paul Samuelson would later dub "stagflation."

How did Friedman reach this conclusion? (Edmund S. Phelps, who was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics this year, simultaneously and independently arrived at the same result.) As in the case of his work on consumer behavior, Friedman applied the idea of rational behavior. He argued that after a sustained period of inflation, people would build expectations of future inflation into their decisions, nullifying any positive effects of inflation on employment. For example, one reason inflation may lead to higher employment is that hiring more workers becomes profitable when prices rise faster than wages. But once workers understand that the purchasing power of their wages will be eroded by inflation, they will demand higher wage settlements in advance, so that wages keep up with prices. As a result, after inflation has gone on for a while, it will no longer deliver the original boost to employment. In fact, there will be a rise in unemployment if inflation falls short of expectations.

At the time Friedman and Phelps propounded their ideas, the United States had little experience with sustained inflation. So this was truly a prediction rather than an attempt to explain the past. In the 1970s, however, persistent inflation provided a test of the Friedman-Phelps hypothesis. Sure enough, the historical correlation between inflation and unemployment broke down in just the way Friedman and Phelps had predicted: in the 1970s, as the inflation rate rose into double digits, the unemployment rate was as high or higher than in the stable-price years of the 1950s and 1960s. Inflation was eventually brought under control in the 1980s, but only after a painful period of extremely high unemployment, the worst since the Great Depression.

By predicting the phenomenon of stagflation in advance, Friedman and Phelps achieved one of the great triumphs of postwar economics. This triumph, more than anything else, confirmed Milton Friedman's status as a great economist's economist, whatever one may think of his other roles.

One interesting footnote: although Friedman made great strides in macroeconomics by applying the concept of individual rationality, he also knew where to stop. In the 1970s, some economists pushed Friedman's analysis of inflation even further, arguing that there is no usable trade-off between inflation and unemployment even in the short run, because people will anticipate government actions and build that anticipation, as well as past experience, into their price-setting and wage-bargaining. This doctrine, known as "rational expectations," swept through much of academic economics. But Friedman never went there. His reality sense warned that this was taking the idea of Homo economicus too far. And so it proved: Friedman's 1967 address has stood the test of time, while the more extreme views propounded by rational expectations theorists in the Seventies and Eighties have not.

3.
"Everything reminds Milton of the money supply. Well, everything reminds me of sex, but I keep it out of the paper," wrote MIT's Robert Solow in 1966. For decades, Milton Friedman's public image and fame were defined largely by his pronouncements on monetary policy and his creation of the doctrine known as monetarism. It's somewhat surprising to realize, then, that monetarism is now widely regarded as a failure, and that some of the things Friedman said about "money" and monetary policy—unlike what he said about consumption and inflation—appear to have been misleading, and perhaps deliberately so.

To understand what monetarism was all about, the first thing you need to know is that the word "money" doesn't mean quite the same thing in Economese that it does in plain English. When economists talk of the money supply, they don't mean wealth in the usual sense. They mean only those forms of wealth that can be used more or less directly to buy things. Currency—pieces of green paper with pictures of dead presidents on them—is money, and so are bank deposits on which you can write checks. But stocks, bonds, and real estate aren't money, because they have to be converted into cash or bank deposits before they can be used to make purchases.

If the money supply consisted solely of currency, it would be under the direct control of the government—or, more precisely, the Federal Reserve, a monetary agency that, like its counterpart "central banks" in many other countries, is institutionally somewhat separate from the government proper. The fact that the money supply also includes bank deposits makes reality more complicated. The central bank has direct control only over the "monetary base"—the sum of currency in circulation, the currency banks hold in their vaults, and the deposits banks hold at the Federal Reserve—but not the deposits people have made in banks. Under normal circumstances, however, the Federal Reserve's direct control over the monetary base is enough to give it effective control of the overall money supply as well.

Before Keynes, economists considered the money supply a primary tool of economic management. But Keynes argued that under depression conditions, when interest rates are very low, changes in the money supply have little effect on the economy. The logic went like this: when interest rates are 4 or 5 percent, nobody wants to sit on idle cash. But in a situation like that of 1935, when the interest rate on three-month Treasury bills was only 0.14 percent, there is very little incentive to take the risk of putting money to work. The central bank may try to spur the economy by printing large quantities of additional currency; but if the interest rate is already very low the additional cash is likely to languish in bank vaults or under mattresses. Thus Keynes argued that monetary policy, a change in the money supply to manage the economy, would be ineffective. And that's why Keynes and his followers believed that fiscal policy—in particular, an increase in government spending—was necessary to get countries out of the Great Depression.

Why does this matter? Monetary policy is a highly technocratic, mostly apolitical form of government intervention in the economy. If the Fed decides to increase the money supply, all it does is purchase some government bonds from private banks, paying for the bonds by crediting the banks' reserve accounts—in effect, all the Fed has to do is print some more monetary base. By contrast, fiscal policy involves the government much more deeply in the economy, often in a value-laden way: if politicians decide to use public works to promote employment, they need to decide what to build and where. Economists with a free-market bent, then, tend to want to believe that monetary policy is all that's needed; those with a desire to see a more active government tend to believe that fiscal policy is essential.

Economic thinking after the triumph of the Keynesian revolution—as reflected, say, in the early editions of Paul Samuelson's classic textbook[*]—gave priority to fiscal policy, while monetary policy was relegated to the sidelines. As Friedman said in his 1967 address to the American Economic Association:

The wide acceptance of [Keynesian] views in the economics profession meant that for some two decades monetary policy was believed by all but a few reactionary souls to have been rendered obsolete by new economic knowledge. Money did not matter.
Although this may have been an exaggeration, monetary policy was held in relatively low regard through the 1940s and 1950s. Friedman, however, crusaded for the proposition that money did too matter, culminating in the 1963 publication of A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960, with Anna Schwartz.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although A Monetary History is a vast work of extraordinary scholarship, covering a century of monetary developments, its most influential and controversial discussion concerned the Great Depression. Friedman and Schwartz claimed to have refuted Keynes's pessimism about the effectiveness of monetary policy in depression conditions. "The contraction" of the economy, they declared, "is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces."

But what did they mean by that? From the beginning, the Friedman-Schwartz position seemed a bit slippery. And over time Friedman's presentation of the story grew cruder, not subtler, and eventually began to seem—there's no other way to say this—intellectually dishonest.

In interpreting the origins of the Depression, the distinction between the monetary base (currency plus bank reserves), which the Fed controls directly, and the money supply (currency plus bank deposits) is crucial. The monetary base went up during the early years of the Great Depression, rising from an average of $6.05 billion in 1929 to an average of $7.02 billion in 1933. But the money supply fell sharply, from $26.6 billion to $19.9 billion. This divergence mainly reflected the fallout from the wave of bank failures in 1930–1931: as the public lost faith in banks, people began holding their wealth in cash rather than bank deposits, and those banks that survived began keeping large quantities of cash on hand rather than lending it out, to avert the danger of a bank run. The result was much less lending, and hence much less spending, than there would have been if the public had continued to deposit cash into banks, and banks had continued to lend deposits out to businesses. And since a collapse of spending was the proximate cause of the Depression, the sudden desire of both individuals and banks to hold more cash undoubtedly made the slump worse.

Friedman and Schwartz claimed that the fall in the money supply turned what might have been an ordinary recession into a catastrophic depression, itself an arguable point. But even if we grant that point for the sake of argument, one has to ask whether the Federal Reserve, which after all did increase the monetary base, can be said to have caused the fall in the overall money supply. At least initially, Friedman and Schwartz didn't say that. What they said instead was that the Fed could have prevented the fall in the money supply, in particular by riding to the rescue of the failing banks during the crisis of 1930–1931. If the Fed had rushed to lend money to banks in trouble, the wave of bank failures might have been prevented, which in turn might have avoided both the public's decision to hold cash rather than bank deposits, and the preference of the surviving banks for stashing deposits in their vaults rather than lending the funds out. And this, in turn, might have staved off the worst of the Depression.

An analogy may be helpful here. Suppose that a flu epidemic breaks out, and later analysis suggests that appropriate action by the Centers for Disease Control could have contained the epidemic. It would be fair to blame government officials for failing to take appropriate action. But it would be quite a stretch to say that the government caused the epidemic, or to use the CDC's failure as a demonstration of the superiority of free markets over big government.

Yet many economists, and even more lay readers, have taken Friedman and Schwartz's account to mean that the Federal Reserve actually caused the Great Depression—that the Depression is in some sense a demonstration of the evils of an excessively interventionist government. And in later years, as I've said, Friedman's assertions grew cruder, as if to feed this misperception. In his 1967 presidential address he declared that "the US monetary authorities followed highly deflationary policies," and that the money supply fell "because the Federal Reserve System forced or permitted a sharp reduction in the monetary base, because it failed to exercise the responsibilities assigned to it"—an odd assertion given that the monetary base, as we've seen, actually rose as the money supply was falling. (Friedman may have been referring to a couple of episodes along the way in which the monetary base fell modestly for brief periods, but even so his statement was highly misleading at best.)

By 1976 Friedman was telling readers of Newsweek that "the elementary truth is that the Great Depression was produced by government mismanagement," a statement that his readers surely took to mean that the Depression wouldn't have happened if only the government had kept out of the way—when in fact what Friedman and Schwartz claimed was that the government should have been more active, not less.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did historical disputes about the role of monetary policy in the 1930s matter so much in the 1960s? Partly because they fed into Friedman's broader anti-government agenda, of which more below. But the more direct application was to Friedman's advocacy of monetarism. According to this doctrine, the Federal Reserve should keep the money supply growing at a steady, low rate, say 3 percent a year—and not deviate from this target, no matter what is happening in the economy. The idea was to put monetary policy on autopilot, removing any discretion on the part of government officials.

Friedman's case for monetarism was part economic, part political. Steady growth in the money supply, he argued, would lead to a reasonably stable economy. He never claimed that following his rule would eliminate all recessions, but he did argue that the wiggles in the economy's growth path would be small enough to be tolerable—hence the assertion that the Great Depression wouldn't have happened if the Fed had been following a monetarist rule. And along with this qualified faith in the stability of the economy under a monetary rule went Friedman's unqualified contempt for the ability of Federal Reserve officials to do better if given discretion. Exhibit A for the Fed's unreliability was the onset of the Great Depression, but Friedman could point to many other examples of policy gone wrong. "A monetary rule," he wrote in 1972, "would insulate monetary policy both from arbitrary power of a small group of men not subject to control by the electorate and from the short-run pressures of partisan politics."

Monetarism was a powerful force in economic debate for about three decades after Friedman first propounded the doctrine in his 1959 book A Program for Monetary Stability. Today, however, it is a shadow of its former self, for two main reasons.

First, when the United States and the United Kingdom tried to put monetarism into practice at the end of the 1970s, both experienced dismal results: in each country steady growth in the money supply failed to prevent severe recessions. The Federal Reserve officially adopted Friedman-type monetary targets in 1979, but effectively abandoned them in 1982 when the unemployment rate went into double digits. This abandonment was made official in 1984, and ever since then the Fed has engaged in precisely the sort of discretionary fine-tuning that Friedman decried. For example, the Fed responded to the 2001 recession by slashing interest rates and allowing the money supply to grow at rates that sometimes exceeded 10 percent per year. Once the Fed was satisfied that the recovery was solid, it reversed course, raising interest rates and allowing growth in the money supply to drop to zero.

Second, since the early 1980s the Federal Reserve and its counterparts in other countries have done a reasonably good job, undermining Friedman's portrayal of central bankers as irredeemable bunglers. Inflation has stayed low, recessions—except in Japan, of which more in a second—have been relatively brief and shallow. And all this happened in spite of fluctuations in the money supply that horrified monetarists, and led them—Friedman included—to predict disasters that failed to materialize. As David Warsh of The Boston Globe pointed out in 1992, "Friedman blunted his lance forecasting inflation in the 1980s, when he was deeply, frequently wrong."

By 2004, the Economic Report of the President, written by the very conservative economists of the Bush administration, could nonetheless make the highly anti-monetarist declaration that "aggressive monetary policy"—not stable, steady-as-you-go, but aggressive—"can reduce the depth of a recession."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, a word about Japan. During the 1990s Japan experienced a sort of minor-key reprise of the Great Depression. The unemployment rate never reached Depression levels, thanks to massive public works spending that had Japan, with less than half America's population, pouring more concrete each year than the United States. But the very low interest rate conditions of the Great Depression reemerged in full. By 1998 the call money rate, the rate on overnight loans between banks, was literally zero.

And under those conditions, monetary policy proved just as ineffective as Keynes had said it was in the 1930s. The Bank of Japan, Japan's equivalent of the Fed, could and did increase the monetary base. But the extra yen were hoarded, not spent. The only consumer durable goods selling well, some Japanese economists told me at the time, were safes. In fact, the Bank of Japan found itself unable even to increase the money supply as much as it wanted. It pushed vast quantities of cash into circulation, but broader measures of the money supply grew very little. An economic recovery finally began a couple of years ago, driven by a revival of business investment to take advantage of new technological opportunities. But monetary policy never was able to get any traction.

In effect, Japan in the Nineties offered a fresh opportunity to test the views of Friedman and Keynes regarding the effectiveness of monetary policy in depression conditions. And the results clearly supported Keynes's pessimism rather than Friedman's optimism.

4.
In 1946 Milton Friedman made his debut as a popularizer of free-market economics with a pamphlet titled "Roofs or Ceilings: The Current Housing Problem" coauthored with George J. Stigler, who would later join him at the University of Chicago. The pamphlet, an attack on the rent controls that were still universal just after World War II, was released under rather odd circumstances: it was a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, an organization which, as Rick Perlstein writes in Before the Storm (2001), his book about the origins of the modern conservative movement, "spread a libertarian gospel so uncompromising it bordered on anarchism." Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society, sat on the FEE's board. This first venture in free-market popularization prefigured in two ways the course of Friedman's career as a public intellectual over the next six decades.

First, the pamphlet demonstrated Friedman's special willingness to take free-market ideas to their logical limits. Neither the idea that markets are efficient ways to allocate scarce goods nor the proposition that price controls create shortages and inefficiency was new. But many economists, fearing the backlash against a sudden rise in rents (which Friedman and Stigler predicted would be about 30 percent for the nation as a whole), might have proposed some kind of gradual transition to decontrol. Friedman and Stigler dismissed all such concerns.

In the decades ahead, this single-mindedness would become Friedman's trademark. Again and again, he called for market solutions to problems—education, health care, the illegal drug trade—that almost everyone else thought required extensive government intervention. Some of his ideas have received widespread acceptance, like replacing rigid rules on pollution with a system of pollution permits that companies are free to buy and sell. Some, like school vouchers, are broadly supported by the conservative movement but haven't gotten far politically. And some of his proposals, like eliminating licensing procedures for doctors and abolishing the Food and Drug Administration, are considered outlandish even by most conservatives.

Second, the pamphlet showed just how good Friedman was as a popularizer. It's beautifully and cunningly written. There is no jargon; the points are made with cleverly chosen real-world examples, ranging from San Francisco's rapid recovery from the 1906 earthquake to the plight of a 1946 veteran, newly discharged from the army, searching in vain for a decent place to live. The same style, enhanced by video, would mark Friedman's celebrated 1980 TV series Free to Choose.

The odds are that the great swing back toward laissez-faire policies that took place around the world beginning in the 1970s would have happened even if there had been no Milton Friedman. But his tireless and brilliantly effective campaign on behalf of free markets surely helped accelerate the process, both in the United States and around the world. By any measure—protectionism versus free trade; regulation versus deregulation; wages set by collective bargaining and government minimum wages versus wages set by the market—the world has moved a long way in Friedman's direction. And even more striking than his achievement in terms of actual policy changes has been the transformation of the conventional wisdom: most influential people have been so converted to the Friedman way of thinking that it is simply taken as a given that the change in economic policies he promoted has been a force for good. But has it?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider first the macroeconomic performance of the US economy. We have data on the real income—that is, income adjusted for inflation—of American families from 1947 to 2005. During the first half of that fifty-eight-year stretch, from 1947 to 1976, Milton Friedman was a voice crying in the wilderness, his ideas ignored by policymakers. But the economy, for all the inefficiencies he decried, delivered dramatic improvements in the standard of living of most Americans: median real income more than doubled. By contrast, the period since 1976 has been one of increasing acceptance of Friedman's ideas; although there remained plenty of government intervention for him to complain about, there was no question that free-market policies became much more widespread. Yet gains in living standards have been far less robust than they were during the previous period: median real income was only about 23 percent higher in 2005 than in 1976.

Part of the reason the second postwar generation didn't do as well as the first was a slower overall rate of economic growth—a fact that may come as a surprise to those who assume that the trend toward free markets has yielded big economic dividends. But another important reason for the lag in most families' living standards was a spectacular increase in economic inequality: during the first postwar generation income growth was broadly spread across the population, but since the late 1970s median income, the income of the typical family, has risen only about a third as fast as average income, which includes the soaring incomes of a small minority at the top.

This raises an interesting point. Milton Friedman often assured audiences that no special institutions, like minimum wages and unions, were needed to ensure that workers would share in the benefits of economic growth. In 1976 he told Newsweek readers that tales of the evil done by the robber barons were pure myth:

There is probably no other period in history, in this or any other country, in which the ordinary man had as large an increase in his standard of living as in the period between the Civil War and the First World War, when unrestrained individualism was most rugged.
(What about the remarkable thirty-year stretch after World War II, which encompassed much of Friedman's own career?) Yet in the decades that followed that pronouncement, as the minimum wage was allowed to fall behind inflation and unions largely disappeared as an important factor in the private sector, working Americans saw their fortunes lag behind growth in the economy as a whole. Was Friedman too sanguine about the generosity of the invisible hand?

To be fair, there are many factors affecting both economic growth and the distribution of income, so we can't blame Friedmanite policies for all disappointments. Still, given the common assumption that the turn toward free-market policies did great things for the US economy and the living standards of ordinary Americans, it's striking how little support one can find for that proposition in the data.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar questions about the lack of clear evidence that Friedman's ideas actually work in practice can be raised, with even more force, for Latin America. A decade ago it was common to cite the success of the Chilean economy, where Augusto Pinochet's Chicago-educated advisers turned to free-market policies after Pinochet seized power in 1973, as proof that Friedman-inspired policies showed the path to successful economic development. But although other Latin nations, from Mexico to Argentina, have followed Chile's lead in freeing up trade, privatizing industries, and deregulating, Chile's success story has not been replicated.

On the contrary, the perception of most Latin Americans is that "neoliberal" policies have been a failure: the promised takeoff in economic growth never arrived, while income inequality has worsened. I don't mean to blame everything that has gone wrong in Latin America on the Chicago School, or to idealize what went before; but there is a striking contrast between the perception that Friedman was vindicated and the actual results in economies that turned from the interventionist policies of the early postwar decades to laissez-faire.

On a more narrowly focused topic, one of Friedman's key targets was what he considered the uselessness and counterproductive nature of most government regulation. In an obituary for his one-time collaborator George Stigler, Friedman singled out for praise Stigler's critique of electricity regulation, and his argument that regulators usually end up serving the interests of the regulated rather than those of the public. So how has deregulation worked out?

It started well, with the deregulation of trucking and airlines beginning in the late 1970s. In both cases deregulation, while it didn't make everyone happy, led to increased competition, generally lower prices, and higher efficiency. Deregulation of natural gas was also a success.

But the next big wave of deregulation, in the electricity sector, was a different story. Just as Japan's slump in the 1990s showed that Keynesian worries about the effectiveness of monetary policy were no myth, the California electricity crisis of 2000– 2001—in which power companies and energy traders created an artificial shortage to drive up prices—reminded us of the reality that lay behind tales of the robber barons and their depredations. While other states didn't suffer as severely as California, across the nation electricity deregulation led to higher, not lower, prices, with huge windfall profits for power companies.

Those states that, for whatever reason, didn't get on the deregulation bandwagon in the 1990s now consider themselves lucky. And the luckiest of all are those cities that somehow didn't get the memo about the evils of government and the virtues of the private sector, and still have publicly owned power companies. All of this showed that the original rationale for electricity regulation—the observation that without regulation, power companies would have too much monopoly power—remains as valid as ever.

Should we conclude from this that deregulation is always a bad idea? No—it depends on the specifics. To conclude that deregulation is always and everywhere a bad idea would be to engage in the same kind of absolutist thinking that was, arguably, Milton Friedman's greatest flaw.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his 1965 review of Friedman and Schwartz's Monetary History, the late Yale economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin gently chided the authors for going too far. "Consider the following three propositions," he wrote. "Money does not matter. It does too matter. Money is all that matters. It is all too easy to slip from the second proposition to the third." And he added that "in their zeal and exuberance" Friedman and his followers had too often done just that.

A similar sequence seems to have happened in Milton Friedman's advocacy of laissez-faire. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, there were many people saying that markets can never work. Friedman had the intellectual courage to say that markets can too work, and his showman's flair combined with his ability to marshal evidence made him the best spokesman for the virtues of free markets since Adam Smith. But he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work. It's extremely hard to find cases in which Friedman acknowledged the possibility that markets could go wrong, or that government intervention could serve a useful purpose.

Friedman's laissez-faire absolutism contributed to an intellectual climate in which faith in markets and disdain for government often trumps the evidence. Developing countries rushed to open up their capital markets, despite warnings that this might expose them to financial crises; then, when the crises duly arrived, many observers blamed the countries' governments, not the instability of international capital flows. Electricity deregulation proceeded despite clear warnings that monopoly power might be a problem; in fact, even as the California electricity crisis was happening, most commentators dismissed concerns about price-rigging as wild conspiracy theories. Conservatives continue to insist that the free market is the answer to the health care crisis, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What's odd about Friedman's absolutism on the virtues of markets and the vices of government is that in his work as an economist's economist he was actually a model of restraint. As I pointed out earlier, he made great contributions to economic theory by emphasizing the role of individual rationality—but unlike some of his colleagues, he knew where to stop. Why didn't he exhibit the same restraint in his role as a public intellectual?

The answer, I suspect, is that he got caught up in an essentially political role. Milton Friedman the great economist could and did acknowledge ambiguity. But Milton Friedman the great champion of free markets was expected to preach the true faith, not give voice to doubts. And he ended up playing the role his followers expected. As a result, over time the refreshing iconoclasm of his early career hardened into a rigid defense of what had become the new orthodoxy.

In the long run, great men are remembered for their strengths, not their weaknesses, and Milton Friedman was a very great man indeed—a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived. But there's a good case for arguing that Friedmanism, in the end, went too far, both as a doctrine and in its practical applications. When Friedman was beginning his career as a public intellectual, the times were ripe for a counterreformation against Keynesianism and all that went with it. But what the world needs now, I'd argue, is a counter-counterreformation.

Notes[*] See Paul A. Samuelson, Economics: The Original 1948 Edition (McGraw-Hill, 1997).

DOWN’S SYNDROME

DOWN'S SYNDROME

Myths and Truths


Myth: Down syndrome is a rare genetic disorder.
Truth: Down syndrome is the most commonly occurring genetic condition. One in every 733 live births is a child with Down syndrome, representing approximately 5,000 births per year in the United States alone. Today, more than 400,000 people in the United States have Down syndrome.

Myth: People with Down syndrome have a short life span.
Truth: Life expectancy for individuals with Down syndrome has increased dramatically in recent years, with the average life expectancy approaching that of peers without Down syndrome.

Myth: Most children with Down syndrome are born to older parents.
Truth: Most children with Down syndrome are born to women younger than 35 years old simply because younger women have more children. However, the incidence of births of children with Down syndrome increases with the age of the mother.

Myth: People with Down syndrome are severely “retarded.”
Truth: Most people with Down syndrome have IQs that fall in the mild to moderate range of intellectual disability (formerly known as “retardation”). Children with Down syndrome fully participate in public and private educational programs. Educators and researchers are still discovering the full educational potential of people with Down syndrome.

Myth: Most people with Down syndrome are institutionalized.
Truth: Today people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, vocational, social, and recreational activities of the community. They are integrated into the regular education system and take part in sports, camping, music, art programs and all the other activities of their communities. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways.

Myth: Parents will not find community support in bringing up their child with Down syndrome.
Truth: In almost every community of the United States there are parent support groups and other community organizations directly involved in providing services to families of individuals with Down syndrome.

Myth: Children with Down syndrome must be placed in segregated special education programs.
Truth: Children with Down syndrome have been included in regular academic classrooms in schools across the country. In some instances they are integrated into specific courses, while in other situations students are fully included in the regular classroom for all subjects. The current trend in education is for full inclusion in the social and educational life of the community. Increasingly, individuals with Down syndrome graduate from high school with regular diplomas, participate in post-secondary academic and college experiences and, in some cases, receive college degrees.

Myth: Adults with Down syndrome are unemployable.
Truth: Businesses are seeking young adults with Down syndrome for a variety of positions. They are being employed in small- and medium-sized offices: by banks, corporations, nursing homes, hotels and restaurants. They work in the music and entertainment industry, in clerical positions, childcare, the sports field and in the computer industry. People with Down syndrome bring to their jobs enthusiasm, reliability and dedication.

Myth: People with Down syndrome are always happy.
Truth: People with Down syndrome have feelings just like everyone else in the population. They experience the full range of emotions. They respond to positive expressions of friendship and they are hurt and upset by inconsiderate behavior.

Myth: Adults with Down syndrome are unable to form close interpersonal relationships leading to marriage.
Truth: People with Down syndrome date, socialize, form ongoing relationships and marry.

Myth: Down syndrome can never be cured.
Truth: Research on Down syndrome is making great strides in identifying the genes on chromosome 21 that cause the characteristics of Down syndrome. Scientists now feel strongly that it will be possible to improve, correct or prevent many of the problems associated with Down syndrome in the future.

DEATH

Secrets of the centenarians: Life begins at 100

07 September 2009 by Ed Yong


THIS year, the number of pensioners in the UK exceeded the number of minors for the first time in history. That's remarkable in its own right, but the real "population explosion" has been among the oldest of the old - the centenarians. In fact, this is the fastest-growing demographic in much of the developed world. In the UK, their numbers have increased by a factor of 60 since the early 20th century. And their ranks are set to swell even further, thanks to the ageing baby-boomer generation: by 2030 there will be about a million worldwide.

These trends raise social, ethical and economic dilemmas. Are medical advances artificially prolonging life with little regard for the quality of that life? Old age brings an increased risk of chronic disease, disability and dementia, and if growing numbers of elderly people become dependent on state or familial support, society faces skyrocketing costs and commitments. This is the dark cloud outside the silver lining of increasing longevity. Yet researchers who study the oldest old have made a surprising discovery that presents a less bleak vision of the future than many anticipate.

It is becoming clear that people who break through the 90-plus barrier represent a physical elite, markedly different from the elderly who typically die younger than them. Far from gaining a longer burden of disability, their extra years are often healthy ones. They have a remarkable ability to live through, delay or entirely escape a host of diseases that kill off most of their peers. Supercentenarians - people aged 110 or over - are even better examples of ageing gracefully. "As a demographic group, they basically didn't exist in the 1970s or 80s," says Craig Willcox of the Okinawa Centenarian Study in Japan. "They have some sort of genetic booster rocket and they seem to be functioning better for longer periods of time than centenarians." The average supercentenarian had freely gone about their daily life until the age of 105 or so, some five to 10 years longer even than centenarians, who are themselves the physical equivalent of people eight to 10 years their junior. This isn't just good news for the oldest old and for society in general; it also provides clues about how more of us might achieve a long and healthy old age.

One of the most comprehensive studies comes from Denmark. In 1998, Kaare Christensen at the University of Southern Denmark, in Odense, exploited the country's exemplary registries to contact every single one of the 3600 people born in 1905 who was still alive. Assessing their health over the subsequent decade, he found that the proportion of people who managed to remain independent throughout was constantly around one-third of the total: each individual risked becoming more infirm, but the unhealthiest ones passed away at earlier ages, leaving the strongest behind. In 2005, only 166 of the people in Christensen's sample were alive, but one-third of those were still entirely self-sufficient (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 13274). This is good news from both personal and societal perspectives, for it means that exceptional longevity does not necessarily lead to exceptional levels of disability.

Christensen's optimistic findings are echoed in studies all over the world. In the US, almost all of the 700-plus people recruited to the New England Centenarian Study (NECS) since it began in 1994 had lived independently until the age of 90, and 40 per cent of supercentenarians in the study could still look after themselves. In the UK, Carol Brayne at the University of Cambridge studied 958 people aged over 90 and found that only one-quarter of them were living in institutions or nursing homes. Likewise, research in China reveals that before their deaths, centenarians and nonagenarians spend fewer days ill and bedridden than younger elderly groups, though the end comes quickly when it finally comes.

Distinctive minds
Of course, people can live independently without being entirely healthy, and it is true that most centenarians suffer from some sort of ailment. These range from osteoarthritis - which is almost universal and often omitted from studies - to simple loneliness. Neurodegenerative diseases are common too, with around 70 to 85 per cent of centenarians suffering from some form of dementia. But dementia in this group follows a different pattern to the general population. It is more likely to be vascular dementia or rare neurodegenerative conditions such as Pick's disease or Lewy body disease.

Alzheimer's disease, the most common form of dementia, is relatively rare among centenarians yet, intriguingly, autopsies reveal that the brains of the oldest old, who had shown no outward sign of dementia, are sometimes riddled with the lesions associated with Alzheimer's disease. The basis of this resilience to Alzheimer's is largely unknown. The simple fact is that many people who become centenarians seem able to tolerate damage that would significantly harm less robust individuals, and although many suffer from dementia as death draws near, most remain mentally agile well into their nineties.

Not all of the oldest old survive by delaying illness or disability, though - many soldier through it. Jessica Evert of Ohio State University in Columbus examined the medical histories of over 400 centenarians (The Journals of Gerontology Series A, vol 58, p 232). She found that those who achieve extreme longevity tend to fall into three categories. About 40 per cent were "delayers", who avoided chronic diseases until after the age of 80. This "compression of morbidity", where chronic illness and disability are squeezed into ever-shorter periods at the end of life, is a recent trend among ageing populations. Another 40 per cent were "survivors", who suffered from chronic diseases before the age of 80 but lived longer to tell the tale. The final 20 per cent were "escapers", who hit their century with no sign of the most common chronic diseases, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, hypertension and stroke. Intriguingly, one-third of male centenarians were in this category, compared with only 15 per cent of women (see "Two paths to 100").

So what are the secrets of a long and healthy life? Gerontologists point to four key factors: diet, exercise, "psycho-spiritual" and social, so anyone aiming for a century should not underestimate the power of lifestyle - despite the odd centenarian who proudly claims to have smoked 60 cigarettes a day for decades. Thomas Perls, who heads the NECS, believes that up to 70 per cent of longevity is due to non-genetic factors (New Scientist, 3 June 2006, p 35). Nevertheless, many people who live well into old age do tend to have another advantage: an inherited genetic pass.

Take a close relative of a centenarian and you can put good money on their chances of living a long life. Among Americans born in 1900, brothers of centenarians were 17 times as likely to reach a century as their peers, and sisters, eight times. The New England study reveals that the children of centenarians are less than one-third as likely to die of cancer as the general population, and less than one-sixth as likely to die of heart disease.

Further evidence of a genetic link comes from longevity hotspots. Okinawa in Japan is the front runner. At 58 centenarians per 100,000 people (and rising), it has the world's highest proportion in this age group - more than five times the level of some developed countries. Like other hotspots, including Sardinia and Iceland, Okinawa is a relatively isolated island community, which leads to higher levels of inbreeding and a clustering of genetic variants. While such genetic similarity usually has detrimental effects, in these hotspots it seems to have united and maintained genetic variants that predispose people to a long life.

Of course, members of isolated communities or families usually share a particular environment too, but this alone cannot explain clusters of longevity. Gerontologists have found that the influence of environmental factors such as wealth or education on lifespan fades as we age, while that of genes increases. By comparing 10,000 pairs of Scandinavian twins, Christensen found that genes only start exerting a strong influence on our lifespan after the age of 60. Before then, both identical and non-identical twins have largely independent odds of reaching a given age. Beyond 60, however, the odds of one twin reaching a given age are greatly increased if their co-twin has done so, especially if the twins are identical (Human Genetics, vol 119, p 1432).

This makes the "centenarian genome" a key resource for identifying "longevity genes", an invaluable step in understanding the physiological processes underlying long lives. Such genes have been found in abundance in other organisms - including over 70 in the worm Caenorhabditis elegans. Unfortunately, it's a different story in humans. While many candidate genes have been suggested to affect lifespan, very few have been consistently verified in multiple populations.

The centenarian genome is a key resource in identifying longevity genes
Until recently, the only exception was ApoE, and in particular a variant of this gene known as e4, which bestows carriers with a much higher than average risk of developing Alzheimer's and heart disease. Across the world, this unfortunate version of ApoE is about half as common in centenarians as in younger adults. Last year, a second promising candidate emerged - a variant of a gene called FOXO3A. At the University of Hawaii, a team led by Bradley Willcox, Craig's identical twin, found that people who carried two copies of a particular form of the gene were almost three times as likely to make it to 100 than those without the variation, and also tended to start their journey into old age with better health and lower levels of stroke, heart disease and cancer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 37). "There are so many false positives in this field that FOXO3A is very exciting," says Bradley Willcox.

FOXO3A is involved in several signalling pathways that are conserved across animal species. It controls the insulin/IGF-1 pathway, which influences how our bodies process food. It also controls genes that protect cells from highly reactive oxygen radicals - molecules often thought to drive human ageing through the cumulative damage they wreak on DNA. FOXO3A could even protect against cancer by encouraging apoptosis, whereby compromised cells commit suicide. The variant of FOXO3A associated with longevity is much more prevalent in 100-year-olds even than in 95-year-olds, which clearly demonstrates the value of studying the centenarian genome.

So far the search for longevity genes in humans has been extremely difficult, but prospects brighten as genomic technologies become faster and there are more centenarians to study. Only a lucky few win the genetic lottery of longevity, but if we understand what sets them apart, we may be able to make the rest of us more like them by using lifestyle or therapeutic interventions to manipulate physiological pathways. Such medical advances will not only extend our lives, but also help us remain healthy and independent for as long as possible.

Gallery: Six famous centenarians

Two paths to 100
The two sexes fare very differently in the longevity stakes. There are far more female centenarians than male ones, but men who do make it past 100 tend to be more physically robust and mentally sharper.

The reasons behind this are unclear. It may be simply that the female body is better able to tolerate chronic illnesses and disabilities as it ages. However, natural advantage cannot be the whole story as female centenarians are more likely than their male peers to have ridden to 100 on the back of healthy lifestyles.

"For all the major health hazards, women take better care of themselves," says Craig Willcox of Okinawa International University in Japan, who works on the Okinawa Centenarian Study. "They smoke less, drink less alcohol and are less likely to die of violent causes, accidents and suicides. They also go to their physician more."

Men, meanwhile, have the double disadvantage of being both more prone to risky behaviours throughout their lives and more likely to succumb to chronic illnesses as they age. This means that men who do make it to their century must depend more on genetic trump cards to see them through.

Dying of old age
"There is one, and only one, cause of death at older ages. And that is old age." So said Leonard Hayflick, one of the most influential gerontologists of all time. But dying of old age isn't just a case of peacefully losing the will to live - it is an accumulation of diseases and injuries different to those that tend to kill people at younger ages.

For a start, the oldest old have very low rates of chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease and stroke. The trend is particularly apparent for cancer. The odds of developing it increase sharply as people age, but they fall from the age of 84, and plummet from 90 onwards. Only 4 per cent of centenarians die of cancer, compared with 40 per cent of people that die in their fifties and sixties.

Many centenarians even manage to ward off chronic diseases after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. Many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same story applies to people from Japan's longevity hotspot, Okinawa, where around half of the local supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. These people may well have genes that protect them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.

So what does kill off the oldest old? Pneumonia is the biggest culprit, with other respiratory infections, accidents and intestinal problems trailing behind. "Dying of old age involves total systems failure," says Craig Willcox of the Okinawa Centenarian Study in Japan. "Centenarians avoid age-associated diseases, but you see a lot of systemic wear and tear. Almost all of them have had some problems with cataracts, they can't hear very well and have osteoarthritis. Our most recently deceased centenarian in Okinawa caught a cold and died in her sleep."
Ed Yong is a science writer based in London

Climate change

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

17:00 16 May 2007 by Michael Le Page

For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.
Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.
Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.
With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.
So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the most common climate myths and misconceptions.
There is also a guide to assessing the evidence, as well as a blog looking at the history of climate science. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.
What is happening now?
New: Any cooling disproves global warming
Global warming stopped in 1998

Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

Polar bear numbers are increasing

The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

The oceans are cooling

Mars and Pluto are warming too

Does CO2 cause warming?

Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas

Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global
warming

Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell

The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming

Why should I worry?

It's too cold where I live - warming will be great

We can't do anything about climate change

Is the sun to blame?

Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

It's all down to cosmic rays

What happened in the past?

The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

What is going to happen?

Warming will cause an ice age in Europe

Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production

Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

Can we trust the science?

Chaotic systems are not predictable

We can't trust computer models of climate

Many leading scientists question climate change

It's all a conspiracy

New: The leaked emails prove it's a conspiracy

They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

CULTS

HOW CULTS WORK ----

Cults, wonderful on the outside but on the inside are very manipulating. Cult leaders are desperate to trick you into joining. They are after your obedience, your time and your money.

Cults use sophisticated mind control and recruitment techniques that have been refined over time. Beware of thinking that you are immune from cult involvement, the cults have millions of members around the world who once thought they were immune, and still don't know they are in a cult! To spot a cult you need to know how they work and you need to understand the techniques they use. Teaching you these things is what this article is all about.

This article exposes the secret techniques cults will use to try and trick and control you. Cult leaders will not want you to read this, but read it anyway. Once you understand How Cults Work you will be better able to spot and avoid cult recruiters, and protect your family and friends.

First let's eliminate some misconceptions about cults.

Cults are easy to spot, they wear strange clothes and live in communes.
Well some do. But most are everyday people like you and me. They live in houses. They wear the same clothes. They eat the same food. Cult leaders don't want you to know that you are being recruited into a cult and so they order their recruiters to dress, talk and act in a way that will put you at ease. One cult has even invented a phrase to describe this, they call it "being relatable".

Cults are full of the weak, weird and emotionally unstable.
Not true. Many cult members are very intelligent, attractive and skilled. The reality is that all sorts of people are involved in cults. One of the few common denominators is that they were often recruited at a low point in their life — more about that later.

Cults are just a bunch of religious nut cases.
This is a common mistake people make thinking that cults are purely religious groups. The modern definition of a mind control cult refers to all groups that use mind control and the devious recruiting techniques that this article exposes. The belief system of a religion is often warped to become a container for these techniques, but it is the techniques themselves that make it a cult. In a free society people can believe what they want, but most people would agree that it is wrong for any one to try to trick and control people. In the section "Types of Cults" we will examine the various types of cults you may come across.

Christians call all other groups cults.
Basically Christians have said that if a group claims to be Christian and yet teaches something fundamentally different from what the Bible teaches then they are a cult. ie. a Buddhist group that claims to be Buddhist is not a cult, but a Buddhist group that pretends to be Christian is. This definition is not used in this article.

So what is a cult anyway?

The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying. This is the definition that most people would agree with. Except the cults themselves of course!
Religious
Cults that use a belief system as their base are very common. Their belief system could be standard Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or any other of the world religions, or they may have invented their own belief system. What makes them a cult is the fact that they use mind control, not what they believe.

Commercial
Cults that use commercial gain as their base are called "cults of greed". They will promise you that if you join them and follow their special programme for success then you will become very rich. Often they will hold up their leader as an example and explain that if you do what he or she says then you will be successful too. Commercial cults use mind control to get you working for them for free, and to make you pay for an endless stream of motivational tapes, videos, books and seminars all of which are supposedly designed to help you succeed, but in reality are designed to enhance the cult's mind control environment and keep you believing in their almost impossible dream of success. Of course they never mention that the primary way the leaders make money are by selling these motivation materials to their group! For more information see below under the section, "Pressure Selling".

Self Help & Counselling
Cults that use "self help" or counselling or self improvement as their base often target business people and corporations. By doing their courses and seminars they claim you and your staff will become more successful. Business people locked away in hotel rooms are subjected to quasi-religious indoctrination as they play strange games, join in group activities, and share their innermost thoughts with the group. Once you have completed one course you are told you need to do the more advanced course, which naturally costs more than the last. These cults will sometimes request that you do volunteer work and that you help recruit your friends, family and work mates. These groups specialize in creating powerful emotional experiences which are then used to validate your involvement in the cult. The religious overtones are couched in terms which don't sound religious. They usually come to the surface as you near the end of a seminar. Many people have been bankrupted by involvement with these cults.

Political
Cults that use political ideals as their base are well known throughout history. Hitler's Nazi Germany and Stalin's Communist USSR were classic examples of mind control on a very large scale. On smaller scales white and black supremacists, terrorists, and rebel groups commonly use forms of mind control to recruit and dominate their members.

Mind Control is a suite of psychological techniques that cult leaders attempt to control their members with.

Cultwatch does not consider Mind Control to be some magical device which can take away peoples' free will. In other words it does not turn people into some sort of remote control robot. Rather we see Mind Control as a dishonest influence placed covertly on cult members by the cult. So instead of Mind Control being some sort of irresistible force like the aliens in the movies that take over peoples minds, rather it is more like a gun. The cult leader points the Mind Control "gun" at a member and says, "if you leave us then you will lose all of your friends and family", "if you don't conform then you will go to Hell", "if you don't give us money then you will fail in business".

We have broken Mind Control up into a series of techniques that the cults use. Together these techniques make up Mind Control.

A cult needs to recruit and operate using deception. Why?
Because if people knew their true practices and beliefs beforehand then they would not join. A cult needs to hide the truth from you until they think you are ready to accept it.

For example, imagine if the leader of Heavens Gate cult was open and honest about the group and had said to new recruits, "Join us, wear strange clothes, get castrated and then drink poison!" he would not have had many takers.

A cult will have a slick well-rehearsed Public Relations front which hides what the group is really like. You will hear how they help the poor, or support research, or peace, or the environment. They will tell you how happy you will be in their group (and everyone in the cult will always seem very happy and enthusiastic, mainly because they have been told to act happy and will get in trouble if they don't). But you will not be told what life is really like in the group, nor what they really believe. These things will be introduced to you slowly, one at a time, so you will not notice the gradual change, until eventually you are practicing and believing things which at the start would have caused you to run a mile.

A normal religious organization would not have any trouble with you moving to another similar organization as long as you stayed in that same religion. Because it is the belief system that matters, not membership in an organization. For example if you were a Christian then you could move from one church to another and still be a Christian.

However cult leaders will tell you can only be "saved" (or can only be successful) in their organization alone. No other organization has the truth, all others miss the mark. So it is not the belief system that decides your future, but it the belief system AND your membership with that particular group.
The cult leaders need to make you believe that there is no where else you can go and still be saved, and if you ever leave the "one true church" then you are going to hell. This is a fear based control mechanism designed to keep you in the cult. It also gives the cult leaders tremendous power over you. If you really believe that leaving the group equals leaving God (or means you are leaving your only chance to succeed in life), then you will obey the cult leaders even when you disagree with them instead of risking being kicked out of the group. Exclusivism is used as a threat, it controls your behavior through fear.

Be very suspicious of any group that claims to be better than all the others. A religious group may say that other groups following the same religion are OK, but they are the ones who have a better grasp of the truth and they are superior to the rest. This is often just a subtle version of exclusivism.

This is one of the practices that cults are often very deceptive about. For example, first off they may give you the impression that they think you are a true Christian, Buddhist or Muslim and it's not until later that their true position is revealed.

Cult leadership is feared. To disagree with leadership is the same as disagreeing with God. The cult leaders will claim to have direct authority from God to control almost all aspects of your life. If the cult is not a religious group then questioning the leaders or program will still be seen as a sign of rebellion and stupidity.

Guilt, Character Assassination and Breaking Sessions. Guilt will be used to control you. Maybe the reason you're not making money is because you're not "with the programme". Maybe the reason you're not able to convert new recruits is because "your heart is prideful and full of sin". It could never be that the programme isn't working, or those new recruits have valid reasons for not joining. It's always your fault, you are always wrong, and so you must try harder! You will also be made to feel very guilty for disobeying any of the cult's written or unwritten rules.

Character Assassination is used to help create the guilt in you. Character Assassination is a type of false reasoning used by people and groups who have no real arguments. The technical name for Character Assassination is "The Ad hominem Fallacy". This is how it works. Imagine if you will a conversation between two men, Ford and Arthur…

"One plus one equals three", says Ford.
"No I don't think so. You see when I have one thing, and I have another thing, then I have two things not three", replies Arthur.
"I see your point, but what you must realize is that one plus one when calculated in relation to this complex number domain, which I just invented, and then squared by the sum of the ninth tangent in the sequence of the Fibonacci series results in three!", stated Ford triumphantly.

Ok, Ford is wrong, but that is not the point. The point is that Ford tried to answer Arthur's reasoning with more reasoning of his own. This is the healthy way people and groups debate subjects. Now lets see what would have happened if Ford had used Character Assassination…

"Arthur I have been a mathematician longer than you. How dare you disagree with me! You are obviously a very smug and prideful person. I think you are disagreeing with me because you are jealous of me, and to be honest with you Arthur your rebellion has really hurt me and a lot of other people too", stated Ford his face intimidatingly close to Arthur's.

You see Ford didn't answer Arthur's argument, instead he attacked his character. If you are not aware of how Character Assassination works then it is a powerful way to exert control over you.

Breaking sessions are when one, two or more cult members and leaders attack the character of another person, sometimes for hours on end. Some cults will not stop these sessions until their victim is crying uncontrollably.

Cults know that if they can control your relationships then they can control you. Whether we like it or not we are all profoundly affected by those around us. When you first go to a cult they will practice "love bombing", where they arrange instant friends for you. It will seem wonderful, how could such a loving group be wrong! But you soon learn that if you ever disagree with them, or ever leave the cult then you will lose all your new "friends". This unspoken threat influences your actions in the cult. Things that normally would have made you complain will pass by silently because you don't want to be ostracized. Like in an unhealthy relationship love is turned on and off to control.

Cults also try to cut you off from your friends and family because they hate others being able to influence you. A mind control cult will seek to manoeuvre your life so as to maximize your contact with cult members and minimize your contact with people outside the group, especially those who oppose your involvement.

Those who control the information control the person. In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true. One cult labels any information against it as "persecution" or "spiritual pornography", another cult calls it "apostate literature" and will expel you from the group if you are caught with it. Cults train their members to instantly destroy any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information could be true.

Common sense tells us that a person who does not consider all information may make an unbalanced decision. Filtering the information available or trying to discredit it not on the basis of how true it is, but rather on the basis of how it supports the party line, is a common control method used throughout history.

In a mind control cult like in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia you must be careful of what you say and do; "The walls have ears". Everyone is encouraged to watch out for "struggling" brothers and sisters and report what they see to leadership. Often information given in deepest confidence is automatically reported to leadership. Cult leaders will then use this information to convince their members that they have a supernatural link, the trusting member does not suspect the very natural mechanism behind the supernatural revelations they are given.

People in a mind control cult will also hide their true thoughts and feelings, and instead wear a mask which presents them as a perfect cult member. This mask is a defense against being reported to leadership and being punished for not measuring up (cult members never feel like they measure up to the cult's ideals, and yet often believe the other members around them do, when in reality the others feel the same as them). Hence cult members are trained not only to deceive outsiders, but also to deceive their fellow cult members. Rarely can close friendships form in cults, and if they do the cult's leaders may see them as a threat and move those people away from each other. Nothing is allowed that can be more powerful than the cult members' allegiance to the group and it's leaders.

Mind control cults keep their members so busy with meetings and activities that they become too busy and too tired to think about their involvement.

Time control also helps the cult keep their members immersed in the manufactured cult environment.

And time control helps keep cult members away from friends and family.

Together they make Mind Control.

Remember, people are not perfect, but if they employ them constantly you are most likely dealing with a cult.


One of the most common forms of commercial cults is the pressure selling organization. These groups ostensibly make money by selling goods via their sales organization, but in reality they make their money by selling goods and motivational materials to their sales organization. Using mind control they seek to enlarge and maintain their sales force, and hence their profits.

Some names along with the bad reputations of these groups are well known to the general public, so their recruiters need to be very deceptive. They will call and ask to come and meet you to discuss a "business opportunity" or new "eCommerce venture", not once mentioning the organization behind it. In fact if asked they might mention a completely different name. Meeting with them will involve a long intense presentation carefully designed to convince you that you could make a lot of money by following their plan. Only near the end will they briefly mention the real organization behind it.

Here are some key warning signs to watch out for…
Deception. No valid business needs to use deception.
Super hyped meetings, books, tapes, videos, leaflets, products.
Use of Mind control, refer to the earlier "Mind Control" section.
Here are some key questions to ask the recruiter…
Is it XZY group? Ask them if they are, or are involved with any of the well known commercial cults. Often the recruiter will admit to some connection, and in fact the clever recruiter will plainly state their involvement rather than having their deception uncovered later on.
Could I see some properly certified audited accounts which demonstrate this business model working? Like any business they should be able to provide the hard numbers. Not stories of other people making it big, or generalizations about six figure incomes, or more enthusiastic claims that you can make it if you work hard enough. If this is a new business then you want a business plan, profit and loss projections for the next year, two years and five years. If they claim it is a successful established business then demand to see the books. These are not unreasonable demands, no successful business person would ever touch a venture without this basic information. Tell the recruiter that you want to run them past your own accountant, and perhaps your lawyer too. If it's for real then they will be more than happy to comply, otherwise watch them squirm and dodge with all manner of well rehearsed excuses. Of course if they do produce the information then go to your accountant, you're a fool if you don't.

Here are some key warning signs that may indicate a cult is trying to recruit you.

Hyped Meetings
Rather than explain to you what the group believes or what their programme is up front, they will instead insist that you can only understand it if you come to a group meeting. There everyone around you will seem so enthusiastic that you will start to think there is something wrong with you. They create an environment where you will feel uncomfortable and the only way to become comfortable is to join them. This is an application of controlled peer pressure.

Intense Unrelenting Pressure
They call repeatedly. Meet you on campus or outside your work. Trick you into coming for only an hour and then lead you into a long study, meeting or talk. They have to keep the pressure on, otherwise you might snap out of the mind control environment they are trying to immerse you in.

They tell you that they are not a cult.
This is a preemptive strike against the warnings from friends and family members which they know will come. In fact some cults go as far to tell you that Satan will try and dissuade you by sending family members and friends to tell you it is a cult. When this tactic is used then often a warped form of logic occurs in the recruits' mind, the "agents of Satan" do come and tell them that it is a cult. So since the group predicted that would happen, the group therefore must true! Basically if any group tells you that they are not a cult, or that some people call them a cult, then for goodness sake find out why!

Times you are vulnerable.
Experiential rather than logical.
Fake friendship.
End of world pressure.
Pressure to do crazy things.
Secret knowledge.
Single charismatic leader.
People always seeming constantly happy and enthusiastic. Especially if you discover that they have been told to act that way for the potential new recruits.
Instant friends.
If you are told who you can or cannot talk to or associate with.
They hide what they teach.
Say they are the only true group, or the best so why go anywhere else.
Hyped meetings, get you to meetings rather than share with you.
Experiential rather than logical.
Asking for money for the next level.
Some cults travel door to door during times when women are home alone. They, and this is rather sexist, think that women are easier to recruit and once they have the woman then it will be easier to snare the husband or partner.
Saying that they have to make people pay for it because otherwise they will not appreciate it. This is of course a very silly reason, plenty of people are able to appreciate things which they did not pay for.



The Internet should be your first stop if the group you are interested in or involved with has an international scope. Most of the larger cults will be mentioned by counter-cult organizations like Cultwatch, and commonly many ex-members will have posted their cult involvement stories on the net.

Many of the larger cults hate the net since it allows their members access to information they deem subversive or evil. A good place to start is www.CULTWATCH.com, there we have cult information and links to other counter-cult groups. Also go to the search engines and type in keywords associated with the group, like the name of the group, the leaders or founders name, the titles of books they use and any peculiar words that the group uses. If the group is new or too small to have been exposed on the net then read stories of other people who were in mind control cults. The patterns may seem familiar to you. If you are still unsure then email us your story at cultwatch@cultwatch.com, we will let you know of any thoughts we have.

Other ways…
Old publications by the group. Often the older cults have predicted the end of the world or changed their beliefs significantly, hence their older publications become a danger to them. For some of the older cults people have produced books of photo copies of these changes.

www.CULTWATCH.com
cultwatch@cultwatch.com
PO Box 27-406, Mt Roskill
Auckland 1030, New Zealand
Phone +64-9-6222 444
Fax +64-9-622 3300Info Line +64-9-629 5522

CRYOBIOLOGY

Cryobiology: The Study of Life and Death at Low Temperatures
by Gregory M. Fahy, PhD

Cryobiology -- usually thought of as the study of the effects of subfreezing temperatures on biological systems -- stands at the interface between physics and biology. The physical principles of cryobiology are universal, which provides some coherence to the field, but the biosphere contains many surprises and twists, which adds endless fascination.

The present very abbreviated overview is primarily directed at living systems exposed to temperatures below zero degrees Celsius, but it should be printed out that the cryobiology tent covers all branches of low-temperature biology, including the effects of temperatures above freezing. Technically, cryobiology is actually the study of living systems at any temperature below the standard physiological range. This includes, for example, human hypothermia (both deliberate and accidental) and even natural hibernation, which is a physiological modification of sleep that has allowed the physiological temperature range to be stretched to include temperatures that were previously fatal. Above-freezing temperatures can be just as lethal as sub-freezing temperatures, a fact that has significant ecological and agricultural significance.

Some cryobiological topics involving temperatures below zero Celsius are: plant, insect, and vertebrate natural cold hardiness and sensitivity; freeze-drying; supercooling; cryosurgery; frostbite; and deliberate cryopreservation.

Cold Hardiness and Sensitivity in Nature

One reason natural cryobiology is interesting is that nature has had millions of years to adapt organisms to the stresses of low temperatures. Understanding how nature has reconciled the principles of physics with those of biology is potentially quite illuminating.

There are, for example, trees whose twigs can survive direct immersion in liquid nitrogen after suitable pre-conditioning. It turns out they achieve this by manufacturing proteins and sugars that allow the cytoplasm to turn into a glass at temperatures about 30 to 40 degrees below zero (1); once the plant cells vitrify, they are immune to most low-temperature excursions. Certain lichens are even more dazzling, vitrifying in toto upon cooling and warming, without previous crystallization (2).

Another and even more prominent example is the freezable frog, a vertebrate that, along with certain turtles, snakes, and salamanders, has found a way of exposing all of its internal organs to severe freezing at relatively high temperatures (about -6(C) for weeks at a time with spontaneous recovery upon thawing (3). It turns out that major elements in the success of these creatures are the elaboration of natural cryoprotective agents (especially glucose and glycerol, plus a plethora of less-significant agents) and the ability to control the location of ice, typically depositing most of it external to rather than inside the major organs (4). Certain plants achieve the same control of ice by elaborating a physical barrier between sensitive areas (the apical meristems) and the loci of ice formation, such that water can leave the meristems and deposit on ice in the ice-tolerant area, but ice cannot grow through the barrier to invade and thereby to kill the meristem. The meristem can survive the dehydration, and so it survives the winter.

Perhaps the real champions of natural low-temperature survival (with the possible exception of bacteria and the like) are the insects, some of which can survive freezing to at least the temperature of dry ice (about -79 degrees C) (5). There are tales of insects that slowly digest food over weeks of frozen storage, that "prefer" to remain frozen rather than to thaw, whose brains yield evoked potentials when their eyes are exposed to light at -20 degrees C (6), and that supercool (cool to temperatures below their freezing point without freezing) to the lower limits of temperature compatible with the physics of water.

On the other hand, many insects make proteins that specifically cause them to freeze at the highest possible temperature during cooling. Other insects make "antifreeze" proteins that can prevent ice from growing within the insect even when the insects are below their freezing points and contain ice! Polar fish are the most famous for making "antifreeze" proteins, in part because to these very large fish, living about 1 degree below their freezing points without freezing is a constant way of life (7), but the insects have actually mastered this art to a higher degree. Curiously, less is probably known about the physical mechanisms of survival in insects than in any of the other natural freeze-tolerant species.

Freeze-Drying

Freeze-drying has occasionally been reported to yield viable cells. Meryman reported the survival of freeze-dried bull sperm, but this observation could not be duplicated. The LifeCell Corporation invented a technique by which cells are "vitri-dried": the cells are cooled so rapidly that ice either does not form or forms such small crystals that they do not damage the cells, after which space-quality vacuums are drawn to distill off the water at very low temperatures (8). After the cells are stored at room temperature for a short time, they can be rehydrated and, allegedly, recover life functions. They are not, however, able to divide.

Freeze-drying works best for bacteria and other prokaryotes, and extensive work has gone on to develop freezing media that optimize survival. Freeze-drying as a future technology for storing some cells more conveniently than storage in liquid nitrogen gains some credibility from the existence of anhydrobiotic organisms which, as their name implies, survive practically complete drying in the absence of freezing. The tardigrades are perhaps the most famous creatures in this group, since they are highly complex, with heads, limbs, and internal body parts like those of many insects (9). It turns out that anhydrobiosis is made possible in large part through the elaboration of a sugar, trehalose, which happens to have the right geometry to support membrane structure against collapse by substituting for water at the polar head groups of the lipids (10), and some laboratories have reported that trehalose has cryoprotective effects.

Supercooling

As we have noted, whole-body supercooling allows many insects and fish to survive the winter. Surprisingly, this is also true for some mammals, including bats and a particularly adroit Alaskan ground squirrel that can cool without freezing to about -3 degrees C while it hibernates, despite nominal blood freezing points (determined by freezing samples using an osmometer) above -0.6 degrees C (11).

Supercooling has recently formed the basis of a British company, Pafra, Ltd., which preserves enzymes and even whole cells by cooling them in tiny droplets of water to temperatures several degrees below their freezing point (12). Because the probability of spontaneous freezing is small in such small volumes, and because the droplets are prevented from touching each other by being dispersed in a non-aqueous phase as an emulsion, stable supercooling of great magnitude (e.g., -10 to -20 degrees C) can be attained for months. This allows the advantages of low temperature to be attained without the damage associated with freezing. Supercooling can cause enzyme denaturation, since cooling weakens the hydrophobic interactions that give rise to protein folding and membrane self-assembly, but such denaturation is usually readily reversed spontaneously when the proteins are warmed up.

Supercooling has been tried for mammalian organ preservation, but has not yielded storage times longer than above-zero storage techniques, perhaps in part because of factors such as protein denaturation, which give rise to "chilling injury," an injury associated with low-temperature exposure per se. Supercooling is also the basis of organ vitrification, a topic we will touch on again below.

Cryosurgery

Cryosurgery is considered a branch of cryobiology even though the object of cryosurgery is to kill cells rather than to preserve them. Cryosurgery works by exposing cells in the patient to very rapid cooling to deep subzero temperatures. Rapid cooling, for basic physical reasons, causes water inside cells to freeze, whereas the slow cooling found in nature and usually used for cryopreservation causes intracellular water to leave cells and freeze extracellularly. Intracellular freezing tends to be lethal, and its lethality is enhanced by slow warming, which allows intracellular ice to rearrange itself into a simpler structure, in the process literally grinding up the cellular interior. Cryosurgery essentially involves localized rapid cooling to lethal temperatures followed by relatively slow warming and is used to eliminate unwanted cells such as tumor cells.

A major advantage of cryosurgery is cryoimmunology, i.e., the stimulation of the immune system by the damage-induced liberation or better presentation of target cell antigens to the immune surveillance mechanisms. Dramatic reductions in cancer persistence have been attained through cryosurgery in comparison to conventional surgery alone, and a new company, CryoMedical Sciences, has developed excellent new cryosurgical technology that will be of great value in this respect (13).


Frostbite

A form of slow freezing that can be as lethal as cryosurgery is freezing of extremities as a result of unintended exposure to low temperatures. Here the ice remains extracellular, but because there is no cryoprotective agent available, the extent of freezing exceeds tolerable limits. The injury is mostly mechanical in nature but does not necessarily imply the death of cells in the frozen extremity. This has been shown by a number of interesting experiments. For example, Alaskan investigators found that severely frozen extremities could often be saved by the simple expedient of slicing them open to allow accumulated edema fluid to exit, upon which the blue, unperfused limb may suddenly pink up with the inrush of fresh blood. Freezing damages blood vessels, making them tend to weep fluid to the interstitium; this edema increases tissue pressure, which collapses the blood vessels externally and halts blood flow. Given a release of tissue pressure, sufficient blood may flow back into the limb to prevent the need for amputation (14). Low molecular weight dextran has also been helpful in preventing blood from clogging the damaged vessels in frostbite cases.

Another set of fascinating experiments were the hamster freezing experiments of Audrey Smith in the 50's (summarized in 15). She found that 80% of the water in the skin could be frozen without damage, and that between 50 and 80% of the water in extremities could be converted to ice without frostbite provided the limb was not bent while frozen.

Others have similarly found that rather fantastic freezing stresses, involving core limb temperatures of -10(C or even -30(C (14), can be tolerated amazingly well. Experiences such as these indicating that complex tissues can withstand massive distortion by ice encouraged the belief that even internal organs such as the kidney and liver could be frozen for long periods and retrieved for transplantation.


Cryopreservation

It is certainly true that organized tissues that do not require vascular support for their function can be frozen and thawed with success. In fact, it is hard to think of an organized mammalian tissue that can't be successfully frozen and thawed when proper technique is used, and thousands of different cell lines exist in frozen repositories where they have been deposited by various investigators to make them accessible to others for future needs. The transplantation of formerly-frozen human heart valves, major blood vessels, and knee components has been made into a multi-million dollar industry by CryoLife, Inc. (16), and there are major industries based on frozen human skin, semen, and embryos.

On the other hand, there are also some mammalian cells such as platelets, granulocytes, and oocytes which are very sensitive and hard to freeze adequately. Military applications that require cells that can be frozen, thawed, and transfused without removing any cryoprotective additives also represent a difficult challenge. Furthermore, it is evidently difficult to cryopreserve certain types of plant tissue, and the cryopreservation of small marine organisms often proves problematic in part because of their adverse reaction to cryoprotectants.

There is clearly still plenty of work to do in cryobiology, both from a practical and from a theoretical point of view, but to me at least it seems that the greatest challenge is the cryopreservation of mammalian organs.

It is not true to say, as many often do, that no success has been achieved in this area. Quite the contrary. Several labs have reported freezing dog intestines in liquid nitrogen with recovery after thawing, although massive damage was apparent and success was dependent on major regeneration and self-repair in combination with a tolerance of severe vascular injury (17). Livers have regained partial function after freezing to -60(C (18), dog spleens (19) and ureters (20) have survived deep freezing and transplantation, and lungs have survived major freezing stresses at high subzero temperatures (21). Even hearts and kidneys have been consistently reported to survive partial freezing, but not sufficient freezing for long-term preservation. The problem is a matter of degree: partial success is not a useful substitute for complete success.

Given that nature seems to tell us that ice is best avoided when possible, and given well-documented physical damage to the non-living connective tissues found in organs that ruin capillaries and cell-cell relationships in a way that renders organs useless whether they contain living cells or not, it seems logical to pursue vitrification rather than freezing as a solution to the problem. Vitrification involves an extreme elevation of viscosity on cooling, resulting ultimately in a liquid that has the same lack of internal motions as a crystalline solid, and thus has no capacity for change over time, yet lacks the molecular rearrangements of crystallization that do so much damage (22).

I have been working on this approach since late 1980, and every year that has elapsed since then has brought important new progress toward this goal. In early 1995, after more than 14 years of effort, there are better reasons than ever to continue to hope that this problem can be solved. The result could be not only victory over a long-standing scientific challenge, but also significant improvements in transplantation medicine.


Cryobiology in the Future

In my career as a cryobiologist, I have found it possible to add a new dimension to the physics of cryobiology by finding practical ways to eliminate ice crystals. Additional dimensions will one day be added by changing the physics of ice in a fundamental way. The ability to manipulate both the physical and the biological aspects of living systems during cooling to and warming from cryogenic temperatures ensures that cryobiology will remain a lively field for some time to come. Even after currently-possible manipulations of physics and biology have all been explored, nanotechnology will come into play, allowing someone to enter the field from a wholly new perspective and change the rules of the game in more radical ways than most cryobiologists living today can imagine.

The future of cryobiology seems secure.


References

1. Hirsh, A. Vitrification in plants as a natural form of cryoprotection. Cryobiology 24: 214-228, 1987.
2. Robert Williams, personal communication; Dr. Williams is currently with the Naval Medical Research Institute, Building 29, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889 (USA).
3. Storey, K.B., and Storey, J.M. Natural freeze tolerance in ectothermic vertebrates. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 54: 619-637, 1992.
4. Lee, R.E., Jr., Costanzo, J.P., Davidson, E.C., and Layne, J.R., Jr. Dynamics of body water during freezing and thawing in a freeze-tolerant frog (Rana sylvatica). J. therm. Biol. 17: 263-266, 1992.
5. Miller, L.K. Physiological studies of arctic animals. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 59A: 327-334, 1978.
6. John Baust, personal communication; Dr. Baust is currently with Cryomedical Sciences, Inc. (see address below)
7. Feeney, R.E., and Burcham, T.S. Antifreeze glycoproteins from polar fish blood. Ann. Rev. Biophys. Chem. 15: 59-78, 1986.
8. Linner, J.G., and Livesley, S.A. Low temperature molecular distillation drying of cryofixed biological samples. in: Low Temperature Biotechnology: Emerging Applications and Engineering Contributions. J.J. McGrath and K.R. Diller, Eds. Amer. Soc. Mech. Engineering, New York, 1988, pp. 147-157.
9. Crowe, J.H., and Cooper, A.F., Jr. Cryptobiosis. Scientific American 225: 30-36, 1971.
10. Crowe, J.H., and Crowe, L.M. Water and carbohydrate interactions with membranes: studies with infrared spectroscopy and differential scanning calorimetry methods. Methods Enzymol. 127: 696‑703, 1986.
11. Barnes, B.M. Freeze avoidance in a mammal: body temperatures below 0(C in an arctic hibernator. Science 244: 1593-1595, 1989.
12. Pafra, Ltd., Cambridge, England
13. Cryomedical Sciences, Inc., 1300 Piccard Drive, Rockville, MD 20850-4303 ([301]-417-7070).
14. Personal communication to H.T. Meryman from W.J. Mills, Jr., but see also: Franz, D.R., Berberich, J.J., Blake, S., and Mills, W.J., Jr. Evaluation of fasciotomy and vasodilator for treatment of frostbite in the dog. Cryobiology 15: 659-669, 1978.
15. Smith, A.U. Biological Effects of Freezing and Supercooling. Edward Arnold, Ltd. London, 1961.
16. CryoLife, Inc., Marietta, Georgia, USA 30067.
17. Hamilton, R., Holst, H.I., and Lehr, H.B. Successful preservation of canine small intestine by freezing. J. Surg. Res. 14: 313-318, 1973.
18. Zimmermann, G., Tennyson, C., and Drapanas, T. Studies of preservation of liver and pancreas by freezing techniques. Transpl. Proc. 1: 657-659, 1971.
19. Barner, H.B., and Scheck, E.A. Autotransplantation of the frozen-thawed spleen. Arch. Pathol. 82: 267-271, 1966.
20. Barner, H.B., Rivers, R.J., Cady, B., and Watkins, E. Survival of canine ureter after freezing. Surgery 53: 344-347, 1963.
21. Okaniwa, G., Nakada, T., Kawakami, M., Fujimura, S., Arakaki, Y., Chiba, S., Yonechi, M., Kagami, Y., and Suzuki, C. Studies on the preservation of canine lung at subzero temperatures. J. Thoracic Cardiovasc. Surg. 65: 180-186, 1973.
22. Fahy, G.M. Vitrification: A new approach to organ
cryopreservation. Prog. Clin. Biol. Res. 224: 305-335, 1986.