Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 10
Assessment of Programs in
Space Biology and Medicine 1991
1
Introduction
AREAS/DISCIPLINES OF ADVISORY RESPONSIBILITY
Space biology and medicine studies how individual organisms and small
groups of organisms respond to the microgravity of space and how they adapt to
it. It has been clear for sometime that when humans go into space, many
changes occur in their physiology. Several studies have also indicated that basic
biological processes are altered in microgravity. It is not likely that the processes
are separable. Human physiology is predicated on the homeostatic functioning of
organs that are composed of cells. All of these complex functioning systems have
evolved in the presence of gravity, and when exposed to microgravity, they are
forced to function in a new and novel environment. Thus, in attempting to
understand the adaptation to microgravity, scientists are forced to evaluate not
only the clinical manifestations of an organismal response to the new
environment but also the underlying cellular and organ response. This requires
an integrated approach that includes both basic research as well as the more
operational aspects of clinical research.
One approach to understanding adaptation to microgravity involves
empirical research in which humans or appropriate animal models are subjected
to the space environment for prolonged periods and are monitored continuously
for signs of changes. This process might lead to putative countermeasures that
may provide a "fix" for the problems encountered, but it is not likely to elucidate
the basic mechanism(s) involved in the response to microgravity. A more
appropriate research strategy is to study basic mechanisms and, based on the
knowledge acquired, to design appropriate countermeasures. This is a longer-
term process. In practice, both approaches require access to research facilities in
space and on the ground.
The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) and several of
its predecessors have formulated comprehensive research strategies for
understanding both basic and clinical aspects of adaptation to microgravity (see
below). The Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), enunciated by the President in
July 1989, envisions a sequential progression of human activities in space of
OCR for page 11
many years' duration. This has placed increased emphasis on implementation of
the appropriate research strategies. Ironically, since a small number of Soviet
astronauts have survived in the microgravity environment of space in low earth
orbit for as long as a year, the perception has developed that there are no major
physiological or psychological problems likely to preclude longer-term human
exploration beyond low earth orbit. The fallacy of that assumption has been
documented in previous reports and the current document reaffirms that
conclusion.
The current report was undertaken to provide an up-to-date evaluation of
the extent to which National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has
implemented the various research strategies published over the past 10 years.
Since 1963, various forms of the current CSBM have existed. The evolution of
the advisory responsibilities and membership of the committee has reflected the
times, paralleling the needs of NASA and the U.S. Space Program. Over this
nearly 30-year period, the committee or its predecessors have issued, or
contributed to, nearly 20 reports (see the bibliography) on space biology and
medicine topics, some narrowly focused (e.g., Report of the Panel on
Management of Spacecraft Solid and Liquid Wastes, SSB, 1969a), others
covering the whole of space life sciences (Space Science in the Twenty-First
Century: Life Sciences, SSB, 1988). Still other reports and official letter reports to
NASA concern matters more of a policy or programmatic nature (Life Sciences in
Space, SSB, 1970c; letter to Associate Administrator Stofan, NASA, regarding
centrifuge, July 21, 1987; letter to Administrator Truly, NASA, regarding the
extended duration orbiter medical program, December 20, 1989). This report
limits its comments to information contained in the three most recent reports
(SSB 1979, 1987, and 1988).
The predecessor to the 1987 strategy report was Life Beyond the Earth's
Environment (SSB, 1979). This report was not a formal Space Studies Board
strategy per se. However, it covers virtually all of the major space biology and
medicine disciplines and makes recommendations for conducting research in
each of these fields. It addresses several areas not individually treated in the
1987 report, in particular, the effects of radiation on living organisms in space and
closed ecological life support systems (CELSS). In 1988, SSB published the
results of a three-year study that included individual task group reports for each
major space science discipline, including life sciences (i.e., Space Science in the
Twenty-First Century: Imperatives for the Decades 1995 to 2015). The Life
Sciences Task Group report addresses all of space life sciences, including
exobiology, global biology, CELSS, instrumentation and technological
requirements, and space biology and medicine. The CSBM's advisory purview is
limited to this report's recommendations in space biology and medicine, CELSS,
and relevant instrumentation and technology requirements.
A number of reports have been issued by the SSB's Committee on Data
Management and Computation (CODMAC): Data Management and
Computation—Volume l: Issues and Recommendations (SSB, 1982), Issues and
Recommendations Associated With Distributed Computation and Data
Management Systems for the Space Sciences (SSB, 1986), and Selected Issues
OCR for page 12
in Space Science Data Management and Computation (SSB, 1988). CODMAC
also assumed the responsibility for its recommendations concerning data issues
in the life sciences.
The most recent report of the CSBM was A Strategy for Space Biology
and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s (SSB, 1987): Jay Goldberg,
University of Chicago, chaired the CSBM that wrote the report. This report,
hereafter referred to as the Goldberg Strategy, was transmitted to NASA in the
spring of 1987. Since that time, over 3,500 copies have been distributed. The
report is one of a number of scientific strategies that have been produced by SSB
standing committees. It is meant to provide NASA with a guideline for developing
its long-term mission plans and a rational, coherent research program in space
biology and medicine.
PRINCIPAL USERS/IMPLEMENTORS OF DATA ON
SPACE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Within NASA
While the primary audience of the CSBM reports that have been
published is the Life Sciences Division at NASA, the nature of space biology and
medicine requires that all of NASA be considered to be the "user" of their
recommendations. The operational requirements of maintaining the health and
safety of humans in space both in the past and in the future are the focus and
responsibility of offices in NASA in addition to the Life Sciences Division and the
Office of Space Science and Applications. This has been true from the days of
Apollo to the present days of the Space Shuttle. As NASA and the nation proceed
to plan for implementing the SEI, the need for a comprehensive agency-wide
understanding of the integrated, critical issues associated with a soundly based
space biology and medical research program will be even more crucial.
Outside NASA
One of the principal agencies outside of NASA that is a potential user of
CSBM reports/recommendations is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The
committee encouraged collaborative efforts between NASA and NIH in the 1987
report. In this time of ever-increasing budgetary constraints, there is a need to
maximize the scientific return from research in space biology and medicine.
Collaborative activities between the two agencies to the fullest extent possible
are strongly encouraged.
The committee is aware that NASA has begun discussions with the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) concerning collaborations on research related
OCR for page 13
to the CELSS program, molecular research, and plant biology. This sort of
collaboration has the potential of enhancing these programs, which have been
constrained by NASA over the years because of other, competing funding
priorities.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds a significant amount of
biological research that could have some relevance to the space program. Again,
it is hoped that NSF and the community supported by NSF are cognizant of the
recommendations and scientific issues raised in CSBM reports and that some
cooperative/collaborative activities commence.
Another potential user of CSBM's advice would be the Department of
Defense (DOD). To date, the committee has had no interaction with the DOD and
is not informed as to the extent of that department's needs or activities. However,
given the major extent of DOD's space program both in the past and that
anticipated for the future, it is the committee's opinion that identifying areas of
mutual interest and concern to the civilian and military space programs would be
beneficial to both sectors. With the National Space Council now in place, perhaps
this could be accomplished more easily.
To a somewhat lesser extent, NASA's human factors research would be
of interest and complementary to certain activities of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). The FAA has the primary responsibility for implementing
the 1988 Aviation Safety Research Act.
Finally, the committee hopes that policy makers from both the executive
and legislative branches of government are aware of their advice and
recommendations and their underlying rationales, particularly if announced plans
for the SEI proceed.
PRINCIPAL RESEARCH STRATEGY
This report was undertaken to provide an up-to-date evaluation of the
extent to which NASA has implemented the various research recommendations
made in its various published reports. Since the Goldberg Strategy represents the
most recent and comprehensive evolution of a research strategy, the CSBM has
paid particular attention to the experimental approaches recommended therein.
This is justifiable for a second reason. The Goldberg Strategy was written and
published during the hiatus in flight opportunities resulting from the Challenger
disaster. In the interim, Shuttle flights have resumed, and a comprehensive
manifest exists of planned flights for the next several years. In terms of the
previous strategies, it becomes all the more important to determine to what extent
NASA's future plans include recommendations in that report.
It should be emphasized that the Goldberg Strategy and all previous
reports referenced above deal with research strategies that assume a
OCR for page 14
microgravity environment. Alternative strategies that involve the creation of an
artificial gravity environment in space have not been dealt with and are not
considered herein. The CSBM is aware of the need to address this specific issue
(artificial gravity) in future deliberations.
The Goldberg Strategy contains 11 chapters—including one on
developmental biology, one on gravitropism in plants, seven concerned with
human physiology, one on human behavior, and one concerned with policy and
programmatic issues.
In this report, recommendations on human physiology are discussed in
one major chapter (Chapter 3) with subheadings. The section on gravitropism is
incorporated into a chapter on plant biology (Chapter 6). This report also includes
chapters on radiation biology (Chapter 8) and the CELSS program (7), which as
mentioned earlier, were not part of the Goldberg Strategy, but were addressed in
the 1988 and 1979 reports. Finally, recent developments in the area of cell
biology are incorporated as a section in the chapter on developmental biology
(Chapter 5).
