2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
Executive Summary
At the 2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop, the attendees participated in a Breakout
Session that included five multi-discipline sessions: 1. Behavioral Health; 2. Bone, 3.
Muscle & Nutrition; 4. Immunology, Pharmacology, Cardio, & Sensorimotor; and 5.
Radiation; and SHFH: New Technologies Medical Capabilities. Each group was asked
four questions in order to help us evaluate the program. The answers were collected
and the Program has provided a response below. The Breakout Session questions, the
attendees’ recommendations and the HRP responses are detailed below in the
following format:
Question to the Community
Research Community Recommendation
HRP response
Philosophy:
The approach for the HRP response includes:
1. informing the investigator community on the current state of knowledge or
forward plan
2. giving the investigator community additional resources to locate information
and documents
3. encouraging the investigator community to pursue internal and external
collaborations and to enhance communication across research teams
2008 Breakout session questions
1.
How well is the Human Research Program addressing the risks to humans in your
discipline area from space exploration? What in your opinion would make this
program more effective?
2.
How well is the Human Research Program explaining its research needs and
constraints to extramural participants? What recommendations do you have to
improve this?
3.
How well is the Human Research Program using the talents of the scientific
community as a whole? What recommendations do you have for improvement?
4.
What non-NASA alliances (types of technologies, not specific names) do you
anticipate pursuing in 2008 to do the work required to close HRP's gaps? How do
we make NASA a smarter investor? How can we redirect resources toward
uncovered requirements?
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
BEHAVORIAL HEALTH (BHP)
1. How well is the Human Research Program addressing the risks to humans
in your discipline area from space exploration? What in your opinion
would make this program more effective?
We are addressing the BHP risks well, but also discovering that new risks are emerging as
we learn about the plans for the CEV, lunar reference mission, etc.
BHP needs more timely information and briefings on CEV and lunar reference mission,
related engineering environmental constraints that can affect behavioral capability and
behavioral health of crewmembers. Need more communication for program management
office regarding mission planning
This type of information is still in development and not yet baselined within the
Constellation Program, which has responsibility for planning such missions. In
the absence of this information, HRP has developed a Lunar Human Research
Requirements Document, to provide as much credible information as possible..
At the 2008 Investigator’s Workshop, a Constellation Program representative
presented the current state of reference mission planning even though the
concepts were still in development. The theme for the 2009 Investigator’s
Workshop will focus on lunar mission planning, and we will again have a
Constellation Program representative discuss current lunar mission planning.
Paradigm shift--emphasis on shuttle experiences needs to give way to longer-duration
mission experiences with isolation and remoteness as key components.
The general philosophy within the HRP Elements is that studies will need to shift
emphasis away from short-duration studies and utilize ISS crew time and ground
analogs more. Given the fact that Shuttle opportunities are limited, the 2008
NASA Research Announcement solicitation was written with the intent to focus
on long-duration or ground analog studies specifically in support of future longduration space exploration missions.
2. How well is the Human Research Program explaining its research needs
and constraints to extramural participants? What recommendations do
you have to improve this?
Excellent
Annual BHP meeting
Monthly teleconferences
Extensive e-mail and phone contact
Evidence reports, programmatic review, etc.
Improvements
 Ensure everyone knows our analogs and what’s going on in those analogs
HRP has established a Flight Analogs Project within the Human Health
Countermeasures Element that functions as the analog coordinator. The Project
2
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
is developing an Analog Engagement Plan that describes each analog facility
available to HRP investigators and the process to utilize those facilities. A
website is in development that will include an overview of each facility, the types
of simulations that can be performed as well as contact information for each
facility. In addition, BHP has taken the initiative and made a thorough
assessment of analogs specifically relevant to its own needs.
 There is a consensus that a common set of BHP measures are deployed in the analogs.
The Analog Engagement Plan will codify the common set of measures within
each analog.
3. How well is the Human Research Program using the talents of the scientific
community as a whole? What recommendations do you have for
improvement?
More outreach
 To military relative to hyperbaric effects, team cohesion, effects of extreme confinement
 To the stress management community
Investigators are encouraged to coordinate outreach to the external community
via their Element Mgrs/Scientists as well as individually.
Increase involvement of more BHP investigators in long-duration analog studies by
participating, data sharing, etc.
Investigators are encouraged to propose long-duration analog studies to their
HRP Element as directed tasks or through responses to NASA Research
Announcements. In addition, the Flight Analogs Project website will increase
visibility of the facilities available to funded investigators.
Hold analog environment workshop to optimize use of the analogs
An analog environment workshop is a great idea to help optimize the use of all
analogs available to HRP Investigators. BHP is developing an analog
assessment strategy that should help with optimizing use of the analogs.
In addition, HRP has established a Flight Analogs Project with the Human Health
Countermeasures Element that functions as the analog coordinator. Currently,
the Flight Analogs Project has the charge to integrate HRP requirements to
enable the use of analogs. More information on the Flight Analogs Project can be
found at http://hacd.jsc.nasa.gov/projects/flight_analogs.cfm.
4. What non-NASA alliances (types of technologies, not specific names) do
you anticipate pursuing in 2008 to do the work required to close HRP's
gaps? How do we make NASA a smarter investor? How can we redirect
resources toward uncovered requirements?
BHP Leveraging is already extensive
Bud Brainard—Apollo—blue light study
3
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
Judith Orasanu—DARPA—cognitive tool
David Dinges—NIH/Department of Homeland Security—PVT Self-Test development/validation
Chuck Czeisler—NIH etc.
NIMH, NIA, NHLBI, AHRQ, NIOSH, NINDS, NIGMS, NIJ, USARIE, NINR, AFOSR, DHS
Our use of analogs needs to be visible—we have extensive translation underway
The investment in the fundamental science has yielded technologies and interventions
These technologies are now being deployed in analogs environments
There is a need for resources for these translation and technology feasibility studies.
Investigator teams need to develop a strategy for addressing both translation and
transition of technologies to stakeholders (i.e., moving technologies from
laboratories to analogs and then from analogs to medical operations.) The
Element-sponsored Working Groups and Discipline Integrated Product Teams
are ideal venues to make connections for translation of technologies.
4
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
BONE, MUSCLE, & NUTRITION
1. How well is the Human Research Program addressing the risks to humans in
your discipline area from space exploration? What in your opinion would
make this program more effective?
Use of animal models to define long term health risk assessments is limited by the current
program. Risks in BR cannot be adequately addressed by human studies and there needs to
be a recognized requirement for animal studies that enable invasive measures.
Animal models are currently used within the Program where they address
research Gaps (e.g., Radiation). Investigators need to make a clear argument for
animal models in their proposals.
For nutrition, HRP need and gaps are well addressed but need greater emphasis on food
sources of nutrients (e.g., stability, nutrient requirements, and observed nutrition deficiencies
-cross disciplinary impact) integration between food science and nutrition. For example,
there is no team for Food science. Need to fully integrate; more face-to -face discussion is
needed within disciplinary team members or pull in extramural scientists.
Points of integration for Food and Nutrition have been identified in the HRP
Integrated Research Plan. The external community can contact Michele
Perchonok in SHFH. Visit the Advanced Food Technology Website at
http://hefd.jsc.nasa.gov/aft.htm.
Foster collaborations between discipline groups and across Elements (e.g., Radiation);
concur with need for animal studies, better definition of mission tasks to elucidate whether
the human risks are being adequately addressed.
HRP has focused on discipline and Element integration over the past year by
holding combined disciple and Element workshops, taking a cross-Element
approach at creating and reviewing the IRP, and initiating several directed
studies with cross-Element participation.
Reference missions have been developed within the Constellation Program
based on those given in the ESAS report. These reference missions are being
refined by the Constellation Program. HRP has developed a Lunar Human
Research Requirements Document to document requirements specific to the
space life sciences which can then be referred to Constellation to be fulfilled.
2. How well is the Human Research Program explaining its research needs and
constraints to extramural participants? What recommendations do you have
to improve this?
There is a lack of knowledge of re: constraints with food supply, e.g., shielding, meal vs.
―food bars‖, and knowledge regarding food processing information which impacts nutrient
stability.
Food supply is still in definition by the Constellation Program. Stability concerns
should be coordinated across all Elements and their Projects, such as Non-
5
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
Exercise Physiological Countermeasures, Advanced Food Technology, and
Space Radiation.
Need to make the Bioastronautics Roadmap understandable, accessible, avoid acronyms so
that extramural scientists are not lost in jargon and ill defined needs; need to emphasize the
critical requirement of directly relating research to GAPS and Roadmap risk/critical
questions as a specific aim.
What is the transition plan to the Integrated Research Plan? Does this document replace the
Roadmap?
The Bioastronautics Roadmap will be supplanted by the Human Research
Roadmap which will include the Program Requirements Documents (Risks) and
the Integrated Research Plan (gaps and tasks). The current Integrated Research
Plan is available at http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/files/hrp-47065_HRPIRP.pdf and the Program Requirements Document is available at
http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/files/hrp-47052_HRP-Req-Doc.pdf. The HRP
Evidence Book Risk Reports will be made available in early 2009 to the public
and will be located on the HRP external website
(http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/about.asp).
3. How well is the Human Research Program using the talents of the scientific
community as a whole? What recommendations do you have for
improvement?
NASA should develop new investigator and mentors awards in order to capture a new
generation of applied and basic researchers.
HRP acknowledges the pressing need for new investigators, but mentoring
opportunities are limited due to available resources. Opportunities for postdoctoral fellowships include Oak Ridge Associated Universities
(http://nasa.orau.org/postdoc/) and NSBRI
(http://www.nsbri.org/Announcements/index.html). HRP Elements are
encouraged to allocate resources within their budgets to foster such opportunities
if they can also contribute to the Elements’ goals.
Nutrition as a countermeasure not fully explored, e.g., impact on muscle was not addressed in
the last NRA. Not a clear path for extramural food scientists to be funded – provide more
face-to-face meetings of the discipline teams.
The Elements bring forth priority research for each NASA Research
Announcement. Areas of research essential to exploration missions are
represented in the IRP Risks, Gaps, and Tasks via coordination with the Element
Scientist.
Improvement with a NASA funded 1-day workshop at extramural institutions or NASA
centers to spread the word to the extramural community.
NASA-funded workshops at extramural institutions are not feasible due to limited
personnel and funding resources. This is especially true during 2009 due to
6
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
specific restrictions applied to NASA support of scientific conferences in the
budget legislation. Extramural investigators already working in HRP could help
facilitate this at their own institutions, collaborating with their Elements as
needed.
4. What non-NASA alliances (types of technologies, not specific names) do you
anticipate pursuing in 2008 to do the work required to close HRP's gaps? How
do we make NASA a smarter investor? How can we redirect resources toward
uncovered requirements?
Need for partnering with commercial and IP for flight opportunities of experiments,
technologies for cartilage assessments, e.g., MRI, improved ultrasound technologies (DOD),
ESA-funded technologies.
HRP relies on the extramural community to bring non-NASA alliances into our
Program. HRP leverages commercial and International Partner capabilities in
many areas of the Program (flight as well as ground). These partnerships are
discussed and managed under the auspices of groups like the International
Space Life Sciences Working Group, and the Joint Working Group (with Russian
partners). HRP encourages investigators to bring new partnerships to the table
and leverage commercial and International Partner work to address HRP gaps
and risks.
―Smarter‖ investments by defining the specific requirements that must be met (e.g., low
power, smaller size, multifunctional applications). Need better integration between
engineering needs and research needs.
Reference missions have been developed within Constellation and are given in
the ESAS report. These reference missions are being refined by the
Constellation program. HRP has developed a Lunar Human Research
Requirements Document.
7
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
IMMUNOLOGY PHARMACOLOGY CARDIO SENSORIMOTOR
1. How well is the Human Research Program addressing the risks to humans in
your discipline area from space exploration? What in your opinion would
make this program more effective?
Highest priority risk addressed, but other risks are lost. Origin of risks for some disciplines is
not clear.
Origins of HRP risks are contained within the Evidence Book Risk Reports, which
will be available in early 2009.
Concerned about process, how gaps are added and removed.
No transparency on risk process
A process to add or remove risks is currently in development within the HRP
Program Office to include configuration control. This process includes the Chief
Medical Officer’s Human System Risk Board which evaluates space life sciences
Risks. Risks are managed by the Program, and Gaps are managed by the
Element, but all levels can bring forth evidence.
Difficult to keep a basic research component in the discipline; basic scientists feel
disenfranchised. Gravitational physiology as well all biological research has lost status as a
science. Basic research is still required, NASA is only agency concerned with gravitational
research.
HRP gaps and tasks are focused on specific deliverables for stakeholders such
as Constellation, which require directed research over the short term. Some
basic research is accomplished by the NSBRI. This focus is required to fulfill the
HRP objective to deliver human health and performance countermeasures,
knowledge, technologies, and tools to enable safe, reliable, and productive
human space exploration within the near term.
There are significant limitations for data collection post-flight, prioritization for crew time
and facilities are necessary.
Currently, these resources are limited due to factors beyond HRP control. HRP
recognizes this as a significant constraint, and post-flight data collection time is
included as a component of the top HRP programmatic risks (# 1375: Lack of
Sufficient ISS Flight Resources for HRP Investigations). Prioritization for crew
time and facilities, and resolution of limitation for post-flight data collection is
managed and implemented by the ISS Medical Project for the HRP, in
conjunction with the ISS and Shuttle Programs and the International Partners.
Integration with flight medicine has been a limitation, has improved but is still in need of
work. There has been an unwillingness to investigate what can be done. Information on
flight crew medical problems is not shared, difficult to know where the issues lie.
The relationship with Flight Medicine is improving with increasing understanding
of HRP deliverables. Clinical information is restricted by law and policy. The Life
Sciences Data Archive (http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/) and the Longitudinal Study of
8
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
Astronaut Health http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/docs/research/LSAH_nav.cfmhave
been instituted to provide useful data consistent with requestors' needs and
subjects' rights. There will be a plenary presentation at the 2009 Investigators’
Workshop describing access to these resources.
A survey will be taken during the 2009 Investigator’s Workshop to assess the
needs of the investigator community and to advertise the resources available.
Additionally, a presentation on Data Accessibility issues will be given at the 2009
Investigator’s Workshop to communicate the processes and procedures for
obtaining reports of unattributable data.
Difficult to find way in the current system…NASA presents a moving target, priorities keep
changing
Priorities often change in response to redirections imposed by Congress and the
Administration; these are beyond HRP control. Research priorities can be found
in the Program Requirements Document
(http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/files/hrp-47052_HRP-Req-Doc.pdf),
Integrated Research Plan (http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/files/hrp47065_HRP-IRP.pdf).
Make better connections with crew and med ops, data debriefs etc. Get them interested and
invested in research…little attendance from these groups at this meeting. Flight surgeons,
and even astronauts, must be active partners, possibly designate representatives to each
discipline who are given the time and resources to be a participatory member of the teams.
This is happening in some groups, but they are spread too thin.
Flight surgeons have been represented on each Discipline Integrated Product
Team. All Elements, Projects, and Disciplines are encouraged to collaborate as
needed. HRP is working to establish continual communication with the
astronauts and with medical operations through the Human System Risk Board.
This is an integrated look at all human system risks and an opportunity for crew
and med ops to provide their insight into the research needs.
2. How well is the Human Research Program explaining its research needs and
constraints to extramural participants? What recommendations do you have
to improve this?
Tired of hearing about constraints, too often first response is ―no, it can’t be done‖.
Constraints are not real. Communication about the environment in which we must operate is
vital, and not being done.
The HRP faces many constraints beyond our control. This includes limited
availability of flight and crew resources with which we accomplish our research
goals. A goal of the HRP Investigator’s Workshop is to communicate the
constraints of spaceflight and then to develop ways to work around them, if
possible.
9
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
Two-step solicitations lead to a schizophrenic response due to the requirements
The 2007 NRA allowed some responders to submit Step-1 proposals via
NSPIRES and Step-2 proposals via grants.gov. The 2008 NRA contained
specific instructions that responders should use the same system for each step.
This process will be implemented for subsequent announcements. For more
information, please visit the 2008 NRA website at
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?method=init&solId=
{184B6520-2AAE-14C8-F32A-D8C37AF77E7A}&path=open.
Publish the evidence books as ―primers‖ for future work.
The purpose of the HRP Evidence Book is to serve as a primer for future work.
The HRP Evidence Book Risk Reports will be made available in early 2009 on
the HRP external website (http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/about.asp) as well
as a NASA special publication.
3. How well is the Human Research Program using the talents of the scientific
community as a whole? What recommendations do you have for
improvement?
Many of the current document efforts are redundant and/or unnecessary.
The Bioastronautics Roadmap was used to build the Program Requirements
Document and the Integrated Research Plan. These guiding documents are
necessary to address the new requirements for human research and enable the
HRP to provide deliverables to Constellation and other stakeholders.
Change annual investigator meeting to every other year and improve intermediate
communication; we need less programmatic content, more science. Change plenary sessions
to be a ―state of the art‖ session. Improving the quality of the science portion of this meeting
is desired. Include more international participation, broaden scope of meeting.
A biennial meeting has been given serious consideration. HRP determined that
an annual meeting is in the best interest of the program in order to provide up-todate information.
We will work to improve the scientific content of the workshop. Programmatic
orientation is unavoidable due to the many requests for more programmatic
information, such as helping investigators find their way through the NASA
system, i.e. Integrated Research Plan, Program Requirements Document, and
Evidence Book. The 2009 Investigators’ Workshop will include more scientific
content. Programmatic content will be limited to providing investigators with the
status of new directions and decisions that occurred this year, and new
information on data accessibility, per investigators’ requests.
10
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
Lack of clear communication about what research is currently being funded leads to wasted
effort on NRA proposals.
Information about currently funded HRP research can be found in the HRP Task
Book (http://peer1.nasaprs.com/Publication/welcome.cfm). An effort is currently
with the underway with the Elements to capture all HRP research tasks and
provide updates to the Task Book.
4. What non-NASA alliances (types of technologies, not specific names) do you
anticipate pursuing in 2008 to do the work required to close HRP's gaps? How
do we make NASA a smarter investor? How can we redirect resources toward
uncovered requirements?
What are the possibilities/opportunities to take advantage of commercial spaceflight? Is
there a group investigating this avenue?
Yes. The HRP, working through the JSC Space Life Sciences Directorate, has
met with the Federal Aviation Administration to discuss potential collaboration on
use of commercial spaceflight data. We have also begun exploring how
commercial flight opportunities can help us in our risk reduction activities,
especially through testing hardware in the flight environment before committing it
to missions lasting many months or years. While the results of this are still
preliminary, there may be opportunities in the future for such collaboration.
11
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
RADIATION
1. How well is the Human Research Program addressing the risks to humans in
your discipline area from space exploration? What in your opinion would
make this program more effective?
Need to consider physiological effects of potential radiation pharmaceuticals
countermeasures. Need to consider additional physiological stressors (such as sleep
deprivation, lack of nutrition, vibration, etc.) in our radiation effects studies.
Areas of study important to exploration missions are represented in the IRP
Risks, Gaps, and Tasks via coordination with the Elements.
More interaction with other focus groups is needed. Radiation group’s location in another
building at this meeting was not conducive to this goal.
We understand that Space Radiation seemed sequestered in another building at
the workshop but this was due to space limitations. In an effort to encourage a
multi-disciplinary approach, the 2009 Investigator’s Workshop will include
sessions organized by risks instead of discipline. These sessions will be
coordinated so that subject matter experts from multiple disciplines will be able to
attend multiple sessions.
2. How well is the Human Research Program explaining its research needs and
constraints to extramural participants? What recommendations do you have
to improve this?
Need increased facilities to accommodate the focus on low dose/low dose-rate and chronic
exposures
The extramural community can help advertise their need for facilities by using
their research network (outside of NASA) and channeling that back into the
program (e.g. access to Los Alamos National Lab via Department of Energy, or
international facilities in Europe and Japan.)
Need associate editor in Space Radiation Science at journal of Radiation Research to identify
appropriate reviewers
This is not a NASA issue, as we do not sponsor the Journal of Radiation
Research. This is best worked by the investigator community directly with the
journal.
3. How well is the Human Research Program using the talents of the scientific
community as a whole? What recommendations do you have for
improvement?
NASA supports several educational opportunities to train graduate level students and bring
new talented individuals into the field. The program PI’s would like better information on
such opportunities that may benefit their research.
12
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
Radiation-specific graduate and post-doctoral fellow opportunity programs
include:
 Oak Ridge Associated Universities (http://nasa.orau.org/postdoc/)
 Brookhaven Space Radiation Summer School program
(http://www.bnl.gov/medical/NASA/NSRSS/default.asp)
 NASA Radiation Interuniversity Science and Engineering (RaISE) Project
(http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/education/RaISE_main.asp)
Need PIs to team up in experimental design to maximize use of resources if possible.
HRP encourages investigators to take a multi-disciplinary look at problems and
team up when developing proposals.
Need more info on access to archived human blood samples from astronauts for pilot studies
on radiation effects in crew.
The Biospecimen Sharing Program (BSP) at Johnson Space Center provides the
scientific community with access to NASA's inventory of biological materials from
organisms that have flown in space or from related ground control studies. To
obtain specific information and requirements for requesting archival samples,
please visit the Life Sciences Data Archive (LSDA) website at
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/biospecimens/biospecNRA.cfm.
4. What non-NASA alliances (types of technologies, not specific names) do you
anticipate pursuing in 2008 to do the work required to close HRP's gaps? How
do we make NASA a smarter investor? How can we redirect resources toward
uncovered requirements?
Need to leverage additional low-LET facilities to increase access for PI’s (ex. Loma Linda).
These facilities are currently available to investigators and are included as
resources in the Radiation solicitation calls.
13
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
SHFH: NEW TECHNOLOGIES MEDICAL CAPABILITIES
1. How well is the Human Research Program addressing the risks to humans in
your discipline area from space exploration? What in your opinion would
make this program more effective?
Considerable progress has been made with the IRP, evidence book, discipline integrated
project team approach; however, the information should be available to investigator on the
external internet.
The HRP Evidence Book Risk Reports will be made available in early 2009 on
the HRP external website (http://humanresearch.jsc.nasa.gov/about.asp) as well
as a NASA special publication.
The information should be available in a format that permits NSBRI investigators to
comment before the document baselined.
NSBRI Directors and Liaisons are included in document reviews prior to
baseline. HRP encourages investigators and team leaders to work with their
Element counterparts and Liaisons to provide input to HRP documentation. The
Program Implementation Review panel which reviewed the HRP for NASA in
2008 commended our coordination efforts with the NSBRI.
Constellation has been successful in incorporating comments and distributing information –
this would be a good model; a wiki-type environment for collaboration on these documents
should be explored.
A Wiki-approach to document collaboration is a good idea and HRP is evaluating
its usefulness. HRP is also evaluating an open source environment for
documents such as the HRP Evidence Book Risk Reports.
2. How well is the Human Research Program explaining its research needs and
constraints to extramural participants? What recommendations do you have
to improve this?
Mentoring/relationships on a PI-level are good way to communicate needs and constraints to
outside investigator in addition to the NSBRI liaisons: Example 1-engineer assigned to get
ready for flight. (Example: Contractor or NASA scientist who can be on site as a liaison to
know what is going-on at NASA and understand PI project to relay info back & forth; can be
implemented through help from project scientists and NSBRI team leads). This approach can
be successful, but financial resources must be allocated to compensate NASA personnel and
make sure that they have sufficient time & recognize that it is part of their job.
Needs and constraints are communicated to outside investigators by ISSMP
personnel for flight studies and by Flight Analogs Project personnel for analog
environment studies. A project team is assigned to each investigation which
includes all aspects of integrating experiments into the NASA system. Significant
resources are allocated to these activities which are designed to guide a PI
through the NASA system.
14
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
Q&A formatted document might help explain research needs and constraints to potential new
investigators thinking of applying to a solicitation.
HRP has made several improvements to recent solicitations and is continuing to
seek ways to make research needs and constraints clearer. A Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) section is included with each solicitation and is continually
updated while the solicitation is open. These include questions sent in by
investigators writing proposals. An example can be seen for the 2008
NASA/NSBRI research announcement at the following website:
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=154
847/NNJ08ZSA002N_FAQ.pdf.
3. How well is the Human Research Program using the talents of the scientific
community as a whole? What recommendations do you have for
improvement?
Include scientists/experts from outside of NSBRI/NASA at either annual meeting or team
meetings to get new ideas (i.e., special session with 5 panelists from outside). The
Exploration Medical Capabilities Element (ExMC) does do summits on narrow topics
discussing specific topics. NSBRI would like to be involved and have the opportunity to
participate as experts or provide recommendations for other people they know, outside the
program to participate.
Extramural scientists are encouraged to register for the annual meeting as
observers. Although non-HRP investigators may attend, the purpose of the
meeting is to communicate progress of HRP funded investigations. The 2009
Workshop will have round-table sessions that focus on specific risks and
encourage interactive participation.
Improve reputation of NASA from one who cancels projects and doesn’t have regular
solicitations.
The HRP currently releases two NASA Research Announcements (NRA) per
year, as well as National Specialized Centers of Research and Small Business
Innovative Research solicitations.
Consider ground and analog applications of technologies that are being developed, so as not
to discourage investigators may not be able to have flight opportunities.
The current NASA Research Announcement includes flight and ground analog
studies, so flight is not the only type of application being funded.
Research solicitations should be jargon free and understandable for people
unfamiliar with NASA.
HRP has made several improvements to recent solicitations and is continuing to
seek ways to make them clearer to include an updated acronym section for
proposers to reference. Your constructive criticism will always be welcomed and
appreciated.
15
2008 HRP Investigators’ Workshop Questions, Recommendations, & Responses
4. What non-NASA alliances (types of technologies, not specific names) do you
anticipate pursuing in 2008 to do the work required to close HRP's gaps? How
do we make NASA a smarter investor? How can we redirect resources toward
uncovered requirements?
ExMC leverages Department of Defense (DoD) supported projects (e.g., LTM, SonoSite).
Need to recognize that if DoD is paying most of the bill, NASA has to understand the
limitations that puts on scheduling.
HRP understands the case of externally supported projects and is aware that this
may levee additional constraints on the Element. Please continue to
communicate scheduling issues with the Program Manager.
NASA/NSBRI should look at other industries/areas that might have the same risk and
examine them for leveraging opportunities.
There is an agency-wide initiative to establish collaborative relationships with
outside industries. As one example, recently the HRP established a relationship
with the FAA, which shares similar human health risks for flight. The two
organizations are seeking ways to share data and expertise. In addition, the
Space Life Sciences Directorate at JSC that manages HRP has an extensive
effort underway to benchmark industry-leading standards in research and
technology development.
Leveraging commercial partners has had mixed results, but can be successful. Consider joint
solicitations with other federal agencies like NIH, NSF & DoD.
Joint solicitations are currently implemented by NASA and the NSBRI. The HRP
also collaborates with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of
Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Science
Foundation (NSF).
NSBRI could form ―think tanks‖ to help provide advice, in the form of a document, to
suggest how medical care, for instance could be done for commercial space flight. We
should act fast to get involved in this industry now, as they are moving ahead. Commercial
space flight offers a tremendous opportunity for leveraging, providing a much larger range of
health conditions compared to healthy astronauts.
The NASA/NSBRI Steering Committee meets monthly to discuss HRP needs.
The NSBRI also employs a User Panel and an External Advisory Council. Other
NSBRI “think tanks” would need to be included in NSBRI planning.
The HRP recently met with the Federal Aviation Administration to discuss
potential collaboration on use of commercial spaceflight data. While the results of
this are still preliminary, there may be opportunities in the future for such
collaboration.
16