agement tool. They should be viewed as tactics for the BR, whereas the overall issues should be viewed as strategies.
The existing cross-cutting category “Behavioral Health and Performance” in the BR includes four categories of risk: human performance failure due to poor psychosocial adaptation (Risk 24), human performance failure due to neurobehavioral problems (Risk 25), mismatch between crew cognitive capabilities and task demands (Risk 26), and human performance failure due to sleep loss and circadian rhythm problems (Risk 27). Unfortunately, there is considerable overlap in these categories. Both Risks 25 and 26 make reference to cognitive problems. Risks 24 and 25 both include mood disorders. Further, human performance failure due to poor psychosocial adaptation (Risk 24) belies the fact that there are three separate determinants or moderators of poor psychosocial adaptation under conditions of prolonged isolation and confinement (Palinkas, 2001). These include intrapersonal factors such as personality styles and strategies for coping with stress; interpersonal factors such as group cooperation and conflict; and organizational factors such as the cultural systems of the participating national space agencies and contractors, the values they embody, and their influence on health and behavior.
The countermeasures to address these problems are not well defined in the BR. Thus, reference is made to the use of screening and selection as a potential countermeasure to each of the four risks identified in behavioral health and performance. However, the BR does not acknowledge that there are at least two potential strategies for screening and selection. Screening and selection of astronaut personnel in the U.S. space program has traditionally been based on a “select-out” philosophy that excludes those with any diagnosable psychiatric disorder or high likelihood of developing such a disorder (Santy, 1994). Although this approach has generally been successful in minimizing decrements in behavior and performance during short-duration missions (1 to 14 days), the advent of longer-duration missions, ranging from earlier 3-month assignments aboard the Mir Space Station to the proposed 3-year mission to Mars, has generated greater interest in an approach that is based on a “select-in” philosophy. Such an approach would seek to identify candidates whose personality traits enhance their ability to function at high levels (both physically and mentally) while expe-