Bursic, 2:00
L01
SPACE EXPLORATION: A PRIVALAGE OR A SACRIFICE
Azalea Bisignano (azb19@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION
I am an aerospace and biomedical engineer who is
employed by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). Right now we, as an organization,
are designing a space vehicle to send humans back to the
Moon and also to Mars by the year 2030. Already, we have
successfully landed unmanned space craft on Mars and have
conducted examinations of crust. By sending mankind to
Mars, we would be able to carry out a much more detailed
exploration of the planet to see if it could one day become a
viable colony as the population on Earth continues to increase
geometrically. Space exploration has always interested me,
but as I have become more informed about the short term and
long term risks associated with manned space flight including,
but not limited to death and cancer, I have become less than
enthusiastic at becoming an astronaut although I still want to
be able to contribute to this noble endeavor.
Space exploration in the past to both the Moon and the
International Space Station (ISS) has provided data that
suggests that exposure to cosmic radiation can lead to an
increase in the risk of cancer and other adverse health affects.
A journey to Mars would require a much more extensive trip
of possibly more than three years compared to the two-week
duration of a lunar mission or an average of a few months
spent up in the International Space Station [1]. I, myself, am
working with other NASA scientists, engineers, and doctors,
to determine what are “safe” thresholds of radiation for the
astronauts during the duration of the mission. With the
current technology available, there is no possible way to
completely eliminate radiation. Despite this, research carried
out by NASA’s human research program suggests that a
person’s genetics determine the severity of their reaction to
the intensity and duration of radiation and can be utilized to
predict the likelihood of kidney stones and other health issues
[1].
As a result of this discovery, NASA is considering to
implement genetic testing in addition to the slew of other
medical tests that astronaut candidates are required to undergo
to determine if they meet the rigorous health standards
required of an astronaut. Until now, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration has not been involved in this type
of research because “astronauts have only one fear in life: that
some scientist is going to find something wrong with them”
which will disqualify them and prevent them from going into
space [1]. Astronauts view the incorporation of genetic
testing as only another way to be deemed unfit for space travel
and one that they have no control over. Fred Turek of
Northwestern University who is a scientist involved in
NASA’s human research program remarks that “a manned
mission to Mars could take around three years, and cost
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2015-10-06
billions. If anything went wrong, it would be so much harder
to help the crew, or bring them home. If we’re going to send
astronauts there or farther, some form of genetic testing might
be unavoidable” [1].
IDENTICAL TWINS: MARK AND SCOTT
KELLY
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is
currently conducting a “unique and groundbreaking study” on
identical twins Scott and Mark Kelly: two American
astronauts [1]. One twin, Scott Kelly, will remain on the
International Space Station for a whole year while the other
twin leads the same live, but on earth. During this “21 stcentury omics research. . . genomics (the study of the Kellys’
DNA), metabolomics (their metabolism), and microbiomics
(the bacteria in their guts), and more” will be monitored by
NASA scientists along with other bodily systems in order to
try to develop a deeper understanding of the effects of outer
space on the human body [1]. This experiment will allow
NASA to “explore the health effects of space flight without
genetic variations getting in the way” [2].
According to New Scientist, “scientists from across the
US will collect blood samples and run a battery of physical
and mental tests on” Mark and Scott Kelly [2]. There will be
a total of 10 experiments for them including “Susan Baily at
Colorado State University in Fort Collins [looking] at the
length of the twins’ telomeres [which are] caps of DNA on
the end of chromosomes [that] shorten with age and have
never been studied in space before [and] Mathias Basner at
the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia [who] will
assess cognitive abilities” [2]. The data collected at the end
of year “should prove useful for NASA’s long-term plans for
deep-space mission to an asteroid or Mars” [2]. By
conducting this experiment on identical twins, NASA will be
able “to observe changes in genetic expression in a zerogravity environment and compare them with a simultaneous
quasi-control case on Earth” [3]. Another part of the
experiment will consist of the comparison of the “fluid flow
in the twins’ brains” and the monitoring of the effects of “an
extended celestial sleepover. . . in space” on Scott Kelly
specifically although both brothers have logged hours aboard
the International Space Station [3].
People like Scott and Mark Kelly who are “human
participants” in space exploration “bear ‘a lot of personal risk’
in the name of social good, says Jonathan Kimmelman, a
committee member and associate professor of biomedical
ethics at McGill university in Montréal, Quebec. This has led
committee members to pose questions such as ‘How much
risk can an agency expose its astronauts to in pursuit of a
socially valuable mission?’ he says” [4].
Azalea Bisignano
which NASA was required to present to on May 30, 2014 “is
not recommending specific numbers or risk levels concerning
radiation exposure. . . it will provide NASA with some
guiding principles [4]. According to NASA’s senior
bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe, “NASA cannot say, ‘Well, if an
astronaut volunteers to go beyond a set of safety standards,
we should let them; it’s their free will’” [4]. As an employee
of this government-sponsored organization, I agree that this
stance is the correct and ethical one to take because if some
astronaut decided to embark on a mission despite said mission
having already been determined to be high risk and something
tragic were to happen, we as engineers would be at fault.
The first and therefore probably most important
commandment of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics (AIAA) Code of Ethics is to “[h]old paramount
the safety, health, and welfare of the public” [5]. By allowing
an astronaut to knowingly put him or herself in a highly
dangerous situation would be a direct violation of this
directive because we as aerospace engineers would not be
taking every precaution not to directly or indirectly put
someone’s safety, health, and welfare at risk as a result of our
actions. The National Society of Professional Engineers Code
of Ethics for Engineers has many of the same or very similar
Canons as those of the AIAA Code of Ethics. In fact, the first
canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers is exactly
the same as that of the AIAA Code of Ethics, thereby just
further highlighting the importance to “old paramount the
safety, health, and welfare of the public” [6].
POTENTIAL RISKS
“Space exploration and clinical research involving human
participants share many similarities” in the form of personal
risks [4]. Radiation exposure poses a major concern for any
space agency who is considering a deep space mission in their
future “since leaving low earth orbit and travelling to Mars
will raise a crew’s exposure to levels far exceeding current
standards” [4]. This fact limits the astronauts who can be
considered because experienced astronauts with a lot of flight
time have already been exposed to high levels of radiation for
long periods of time, thereby raising their chances of
developing cancer. Not only are astronauts exposed to cosmic
radiation while in space, but they are also exposed to
additional radiation “from medical tests such as X-rays and
flight training on jets” [4]. “According to data obtained from
the Curiosity rover. . . to Mars” astronauts would be exposed
to radiation as high or higher than the current lifetime limit
during one round-trip mission to Mars alone [4].
Other risks that astronauts are exposed to automatically as
a part of their profession include the degeneration of tissue,
muscle mass, and bone density resulting from living in microgravity conditions for extended periods of time. Due to a
Mars mission being longer than any other mission has been so
far up to date, the negative effects of the lack of gravity will
as a result become magnified. Micro-gravity can also affect
an astronaut’s eyesight because the lack of gravity allows the
body’s fluids to become more evenly dispersed throughout
the body instead of being concentrated in the lower half of the
body (legs and feet). This thereby causes more fluid to exist
in the brain which exerts more pressure on the eyes than what
would normally occur while on earth.
The most serious risk of being an astronaut is death. The
fuel required to launch humans and all of their necessary
cargo through the Earth’s atmosphere and out of the influence
of Earth’s gravity is highly combustible. Launch and reentry
are the two most dangerous parts of any mission and when
failure is most likely to occur. The Challenger tragedy is an
example of something going wrong during the launch phase,
causing the rocket and its crew to blow up while the Columbia
disaster is an example of the shuttle and crew burning up
during reentry because of a problem during launch when a
piece of foam broke off the external tank and damaged the
shuttle’s heat tiles. Heat tiles are necessary to protect the
shuttle and its cargo (most importantly the crew) from the
extreme heat during reentry through the Earth’s atmosphere.
OSHA AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
OSHA stands for the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration and is a part of the U.S. Department of Labor.
Its mission is “[t]o foster, promote, and develop the welfare
of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United
States, improve working conditions; advance opportunities
for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits
and rights” [7]. As another agency of the United States
government, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration should adhere to the protocols and regulations
that OSHA sets forth to protect the safety and health of
American workers. Astronauts are certainly a part of the
America work force and are in fact directly employed and
paid by the American government. One such regulation
dictates acceptable and safe radiation levels to be no greater
than 10 mW./cm.2 for periods of 0.1-hour or more or 1 mW.hr./cm.2 during any 0.1-hour period [7]. Included in this
radiation protection guide is a warning that “some parts of the
human body (e.g., eyes, testicles) may be harmed if exposed
to incident radiation levels significantly in excess of the
recommended levels” [7]. With the current technological
advances, a mission to Mars would expose the astronauts to
far greater amounts of radiation that what is considered “safe”
by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration and
therefore significantly increase the possibility of damage to
THE ETHICS COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is
required to make a presentation to an ethics committee before
commencing on any mission. A mission to Mars presents
more controversial issues than any of the missions undertaken
prior to now due to its very nature of being a long
duration/deep space mission. Although the ethics committee
2
Azalea Bisignano
the human body as a result of the incredibly high levels of
cosmic radiation.
One case study titled “Occupational Health” was
especially helpful in my final decision to not be involved in
the development of a manned space craft designed for a Mars
mission until better technologies are developed to shield
astronauts from harmful cosmic radiation. This case study
focused on the development of of respiratory problems among
workers “exposed to hot metals eight ours a day, five days a
week” which was noticed by a chemical engineer who acted
as their supervisor [8]. The chemical engineer’s concern for
his workers’ health and safety caused him to look further into
the situation. He discovered that the workplace was “in full
compliance with OSHA guidelines [which] do not apply to
chemicals that have not been tested” [8]. Many of the
chemicals that his workers were exposed to within the
workplace fall in to the later category so therefore, there is no
documentation on their effects on the human body. Relating
this case study to my involvement in designing a space craft
to send humans to Mars, I feel a moral obligation as did the
chemical engineer in the scenario, to look after the welfare of
those working with or under me in an effort to ensure that my
actions (engineering or otherwise) do not have negative
implications for others.
The case study regarding structural design errors to a
famous landmark which meant that “large winds would cause
[it] to topple and in the process kill thousands of innocent
people” is another example where one engineer or a group of
engineers’ actions may negatively impact just a few people or
society as a whole [11]. Even if it a choice between your
professional reputation or the safety of other people, the
safety of other people should be paramount. While it would
definitely be impressive to say that I had been involved in
sending humans to Mars, the high risk nature of such an
endeavor is not worth the reputational boost if miraculously
everything went perfectly smoothly and the astronauts did not
end up with serious health conditions as a result of the
mission.
sending people to Mars within the next few decades, would
still put their health and safety at risk (at least until better
radiation shielding technology is developed). The “Adoption
of a Safe Component” case study solidified my decision from
the angle of discussing levels of risk in relation to the
development of a “strap” that would provide “therapy of a
condition in the extremities” [10]. Genetic testing also should
not be used in the astronaut selection process because it is
discriminatory and violates the tenth directive of the AIAA
Code of Ethics which focuses on the fair and respectful
treatment of all colleagues and co-workers [5].
In ethical situations where people’s safety is at risk, I
suggest that engineers should always make the decision that
most takes into account the welfare of society and people.
Even if this decision is not the more economical one, making
this choice will leave you with a clear conscious and you
cannot be blamed for anything that goes wrong in the future
because you acted with moral and ethical integrity throughout
your involvement both professionally and personally.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Lunau. “The Great Within.” Maclean’s. (online
article).
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=12&sid=
d62260b6-bd28-4a4c-858b05385e07b1c7%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4207&bdata=JnNp
dGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=98529507&db=aph
[2] “First Twin Space Log.” New Scientist. (online article).
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=16&sid=
43e5c5e4-fb36-4dac-9d393c4bcbdf4938%40sessionmgr4005&hid=4207&bdata=JnNp
dGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=94919867&db=aph
[3] A. Nordrum. “Nature vs. Nurture vs. NASA.” (2015,
March).
Scientific American.
(online article).
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=9
a76df84-4fbb-4de2-b1317805b40a113c%40sessionmgr115&hid=101&bdata=JnNpd
GU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=101051662&db=aph
[4] M. Shuchman. (2013). “Striving for Mars: What are
acceptable risks?” Canadian Medical Association Journal.
(online article). http://www.cmaj.ca/content/186/1/E7.full
[5] “AIAA Code of Ethics.” The American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). (online article).
https://www.aiaa.org/CodeOfEthics/
[6] “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society of
Professional
Engineers.
(online
article).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[7] “Nonionizing radiation.” Occupational Safety & Health
Administration.
(online
article).
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document
?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9745
[8] M. Pritchard. (2006, August 23). “Occupational Health.”
National Academy of Sciences.
(online article).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/Health.aspx
GENETIC TESTING (OMICS)
While genetic testing may allow for astronauts to be
chosen whom have “molecular attributes. . . that alter [their]
risk profile prior to entering the space environment” and
thereby make them less susceptible to DNA damage and the
resulting cancer that can occur from exposure to high amounts
of radiation, I believe that humans or even animals should be
used as test subjects for space flight until more advanced
technologies that provide better protection against cosmic
radiation are invented [9]. Although these astronauts who
happen to be genetically better suited for the extreme
conditions of space, Omics based analysis is revolutionary
realm of medicine. Even with proper interpretation of
genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics,
nobody is completely unsusceptible to the effects of such high
levels of radiation over such a long duration and therefore
3
Azalea Bisignano
[9] M. Schmidt, T. Goodwin. (2013, June 27). “Personalized
medicine in human space flight: using Omics based analyses
to develop individualized countermeasures that enhance
astronaut safety and performance.” Springerlink.com.
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/379/art%253A10.10
07%252Fs11306-013-05563.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farti
cle%2F10.1007%2Fs11306-013-05563&token2=exp=1446429903~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F379
%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25252Fs11306-013-05563.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.spring
er.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs11306-01305563*~hmac=358b9dff7608d90cb638b73c9162b9c7575581b10
e1690f28b3f69189ac1709c
[10] R. Popp. “Adoption of a Safe Component.” Stanford.
(online
article).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/19safecompon
ent.jsp
[11] “The Cost of Integrity.” WebGURU: Guide for
Undergraduate
Research.
(online
article).
http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/casestudies/cost-integrity
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
Advanced Space Academy’s Trainee Manual. U.S. Space &
Rocket Center. (print book).
Mach III Aviation Challenge’s Trainee Manual. U.S. Space
& Rocket Center. (print book).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you Emelyn Fuhrman, my writing instructor, for
helping me through the process of writing this paper by
providing me with advice and recommendations.
Also thank you to all the crew trainers at Space Camp for
basically teaching me all that I know about spaceflight.
4