|WikiProject Biology||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Skepticism||(Rated B-class)|
A whole side in Wikipedia exclusively devoted to "cryonics" is a fair option for people believing in cryonics. Funny enough that these people call you "hostile" when you ask them not to use the "cryobiology" page for their purposes as well. - Andreas Sputtek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sputtek (talk • contribs) 11:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Characterization of Cryonics
It was written that
- Unlike cryogenics or cryobiology, cryonics does not fufill the prerequisits of an established science such as using accepted scientific methods. It lacks successful studies in the sense that an animal or human being has ever been revived after cryogenic storage so far. Another fundamental principle of science is not fulfilled which is reproducibility.
Saying that AIDS had been cured without evidence would be a violation of principles of science. However saying that cures are theoretically possible, and pursuing them, would not. So it's not really proper to characterize cryonics in the manner above. Cryonics is different from cryobiology because unlike cryobiology cryonics does not seek basic knowledge of nature. In that sense cryonics is not a science (but neither is most of cryogenics). Even as an applied technology cryonics is different from cryobiology because the efficacy of the technology for its final purpose cannot be demonstrated. However to imply that basic concepts of science are being ignored is not correct. 126.96.36.199 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Edits by 188.8.131.52 
184.108.40.206 has deleted references which provide readers with background understanding of the issues, including references to peer-reviewed journal pieces (text from a cryonics organization website). 220.127.116.11 should provide justification or at least some argument for this censorship here in the discussion page before imposing his/her views. --GirlForLife 10:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- References to peer-reviewed journal articles should be to PubMed, not to the pages of a cryonics organization. I have corrected the referencing, while preserving access to the full text. --GirlForLife 12:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy of Neutral Point of View (NPOV). The fact that the Society of Cryobiology is hostile to cryonics is not proof that cryonics is not scientific, especially in light of the high representation of scientists within the cryonics community. Cryobiology cannot escape its association with cryonics, as is evidence by the denuciation of cryonics practice in bold letters in the Scientific Societies section of the Cryobiology entry. One of the references that was removed was written by a scientist in the peer-reviewed journal 'Medical Hypothesis'. To remove references to scientists and the science of cryonics from the Cryobiology page is strongly biased and in violation of presenting a fair and balanced view. We should hope that Cryobiologists have a capacity for fairmindedness (despite their opinions), respect the fact that Wikipedia has a NPOV policy and respect the fact that Wikipedia is an open-sourced reference that is not "owned" by any one -- including members of the Society for Cryobiology. --GirlForLife 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed that bolded section-- which was a copyright violation anyway since it was a direct quote without attribution from the Society for Cryobiology's bylaws-- in favor of a sentence stating the cryonics ban with a citation. I'll take a look at the previously removed information.--Gloriamarie (talk) 08:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also add reference to the Siberian Salamanders?
There are some Siberian Salamanders that are able to survive for extended periods frozen in the permafrost, even decades, apparently with similar adapations to the tree frog.--Keelec (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)