|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This isn't entirely clear...
"In February 2007 the Cryonics Institute abandoned its efforts to patent its vitrification mixture and disclosed the formula to preclude others from preventing its use by CI. Dr. Pichugin resigned from the Cryonics Institute in December 2007."
The CI abandoned its effort to patent stuff, to keep others from preventing its use by CI? Uh. What? That doesn't entirely make sense. Why would it disclose the formula to keep others from preventing the use of its formula by itself? What does that mean? It seems like a very convoluted sentence. What did the author originally mean by it? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I found the following on the CI's website: "In August 2006 the Cryonics Institute filed a preliminary patent application for CI−VM−1 in anticipation of filing a complete patent application. Although a patent application was prepared, legal counsel advised that the chances of getting a patent were very slim because of commercial use more than one year prior to filing the preliminary patent application. We were advised to publish the CI vitrification and carrier solutions as a defensive measure so that others would not be able to prevent CI from using them." It doesn't explain more than that. Player 03 (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Does the board
Does the Board of Directors select the Contract Officer? If so, shouldn't that be noted?Cecelia Hensley 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and it has been noted. --Ben Best 14:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this possible to know/get the financial reports of the institute? including money donated to the research lab? It would be good to have a better transparency. Also, maybe it would be good to see an ombudsman with CI. Despres
Body vs. patient vs. corpse
Let's discuss this here and please give below justification for different terms.
Arguments for "patient":
- That's the accepted term that is used at CI. In an article about CI it's proper to use this term. If necessary, it can be clarified why CI prefers to call the patients patients.
- That's the point of cryonics. The idea is that death is not instanteneous and so even though the person is declared "legally dead" he is still not a corpse yet. He's just in clinical death (suspended animation), only it's longer than usual.
- The article is about the treatment of people, not disposal of dead bodies. So the word patient is proper.
The Cryonics Institute does not get to redefine the English language. 99% of people would say that someone who fell into a vat of LN2 is dead. Hence, patient is inappropriate. I am changing the patient commentary. If a 'patient' cares to come forth and correct me, I will acquiesce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
In the "History" section it is stated that the "first client was Ettinger's mother in 1977". But later in the same section it is stated that in "1976, CI performed its first human cryopreservation". This is confusing... Was the preservation in 1976 aborted?
- Ettinger's mother was the first patient, and was cryopreserved in 1977, therefore the 1976 date is incorrect. I have changed it. --Ben Best (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, why don't you remove it? My editing of this page is not appreciated by some of the other Wikipedia editors. --Ben Best 14:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)