Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine 1991 Committee on Space Biology and Medicine Space Studies Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications National Research Council NOTICE MEMBERSHIP
FOREWORD SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 2. SCIENCE PROGRAM AND POLICY ISSUES 3. HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY 4. BEHAVIOR, PERFORMANCE, AND HUMAN FACTORS 5. DEVELOPMENTAL AND CELL BIOLOGY 6. PLANT BIOLOGY 7. CLOSED ECOLOGICAL LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS 8. RADIATION BIOLOGY 9. CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX: Guidelines for Assessment Reports for Standing Committees of the Space Studies Board NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS, 1991
Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine 1991 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self- perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy
of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. Support for the Space Studies Board was provided through Contract NASW-4102 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Copies of this report are available from Space Studies Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Printed in the United States of America
Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine 1991 Membership COMMITTEE ON SPACE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE L. Dennis Smith, University of California, Irvine, Chairman Robert M. Berne, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Peter Dews, Harvard Medical School R.J. Michael Fry, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Edward Goetzl, University of California Medical Center, San Francisco Robert Helmreich, University of Texas, Austin Barry W. Peterson, Northwestern University Clinton T. Rubin, State University of New York, Stony Brook Alan L. Schiller, Mt. Sinai Medical Center Tom Scott, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill William Thompson, North Carolina State University Fred W. Turek, Northwestern University Staff Joyce M. Purcell, Senior Program Officer Melanie M. Green, Administrative Secretary SPACE STUDIES BOARD Louis J. Lanzerotti, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Chairman Philip Abelson, American Association for the Advancement of Science Joseph A. Burns, Cornell University John R. Carruthers, INTEL Andrea K. Dupree, Harvard-Smithsonian Institution John A. Dutton, Pennsylvania State University Larry Esposito, University of Colorado
James P. Ferris, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Herbert Friedman, Naval Research Laboratory Richard L. Garwin, IBM Corporation Riccardo Giacconi, Space Telescope Science Institute Noel W. Hinners, Martin Marietta Civil Space & Communication Company James R. Houck, Cornell University David A. Landgrebe, Purdue University Elliott C. Levinthal, Stanford University William J. Merrell, Jr., Texas A&M University at Galveston Richard K. Moore, University of Kansas Robert H. Moser, The NutraSweet Company Norman F. Ness, University of Delaware Marcia Neugebauer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Sally K. Ride, University of California at San Diego Robert F. Sekerka, Carnegie Mellon University Mark Settle, ARCO Oil and Gas Company L. Dennis Smith, University of California at Irvine Byron D. Tapley, University of Texas at Austin Arthur B.C. Walker, Jr., Stanford University Marc S. Allen, Staff Director COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS Norman Hackerman, Robert A. Welch Foundation, Chairman Peter J. Bickel, University of California, Berkeley George F. Carrier, Harvard University Herbert D. Doan, The Dow Chemical Company (retired) Dean E. Eastman, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Marye Anne Fox, University of Texas Phillip A. Griffiths, Duke University Neal F. Lane, Rice University Robert W. Lucky, AT&T Bell Laboratories Christopher F. McKee, University of California, Berkeley Richard S. Nicholson, American Association for the Advancement of Science Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Princeton University Observatory Alan Schriesheim, Argonne National Laboratory Roy F. Schwitters, Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory Kenneth G. Wilson, Ohio State University Norman Metzger, Executive Director
Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine 1991 Foreword This report is one in a series written by the standing discipline committees of the Space Studies Board. The purpose of this new series is to assess the status of our nation's space science and applications research programs and to review the responses of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other relevant federal agencies to the Board's past recommendations. It is important, periodically, to take stock of where research disciplines stand. As an advisory body to government, the Space Studies Board should regularly examine the advice it has provided in order to determine its relevance and effectiveness. As a representative of the community of individuals actively engaged in space research and its many applications, the Board has an abiding interest in evaluating the nation's accomplishments and setbacks in space. In some cases, recurring budget problems and unexpected hardware failures have delayed or otherwise hindered the attainment of recommended objectives. In other cases, space scientists and engineers have achieved outstanding discoveries and new understandings of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe. Although the recent past has seen substantial progress in the nation's civil space program, much remains to be done. These reports cover the areas of earth science and applications, solar system exploration (and the origins of life), solar and space physics, and space biology and medicine. Where appropriate, these reports also include the status of data management recommendations set forth in the reports of the Space Studies Board's former Committee on Data Management and Computation. The Board has chosen not to assess two major space research disciplinesâastronomy and astrophysics, and microgravity researchâat this time. Astronomy and astrophysics was recently surveyed in a report under the aegis of the Board on Physics and astronomy, The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1991); the Space Studies Board is currently developing a strategy for the new area of microgravity research. On completion of the four reports, the Board will summarize the contents
of each volume and produce an overview. The Space Studies Board expects to repeat this assessment process approximately every three years, not only for the general benefit of our nation's space research program, but also to assist the Board in determining the need for updating or revising its research strategies and recommendations. Louis J. Lanzerotti Chairman, Space Studies Board