Ethical considerations for planetary protection in space exploration: a workshop.

With the recognition of an increasing potential for discovery of extraterrestrial life, a diverse set of researchers have noted a need to examine the foundational ethical principles that should frame our collective space activities as we explore outer space. A COSPAR Workshop on Ethical Considerations for Planetary Protection in Space Exploration was convened at Princeton University on June 8-10, 2010, to examine whether planetary protection measures and practices should be extended to protect planetary environments within an ethical framework that goes beyond "science protection" per se. The workshop had been in development prior to a 2006 NRC report on preventing the forward contamination of Mars, although it responded directly to one of the recommendations of that report and to several peer-reviewed papers as well. The workshop focused on the implications and responsibilities engendered when exploring outer space while avoiding harmful impacts on planetary bodies. Over 3 days, workshop participants developed a set of recommendations addressing the need for a revised policy framework to address "harmful contamination" beyond biological contamination, noting that it is important to maintain the current COSPAR planetary protection policy for scientific exploration and activities. The attendees agreed that there is need for further study of the ethical considerations used on Earth and the examination of management options and governmental mechanisms useful for establishing an environmental stewardship framework that incorporates both scientific input and enforcement. Scientists need to undertake public dialogue to communicate widely about these future policy deliberations and to ensure public involvement in decision making. A number of incremental steps have been taken since the workshop to implement some of these recommendations.

The astrobiology primer: an outline of general knowledge--version 1, 2006.

The Astrobiology Primer has been created as a reference tool for those who are interested in the interdisciplinary field of astrobiology. The field incorporates many diverse research endeavors, but it is our hope that this slim volume will present the reader with all he or she needs to know to become involved and to understand, at least at a fundamental level, the state of the art. Each section includes a brief overview of a topic and a short list of readable and important literature for those interested in deeper knowledge. Because of the great diversity of material, each section was written by a different author with a different expertise. Contributors, authors, and editors are listed at the beginning, along with a list of those chapters and sections for which they were responsible. We are deeply indebted to the NASA Astrobiology Institute (NAI), in particular to Estelle Dodson, David Morrison, Ed Goolish, Krisstina Wilmoth, and Rose Grymes for their continued enthusiasm and support. The Primer came about in large part because of NAI support for graduate student research, collaboration, and inclusion as well as direct funding. We have entitled the Primer version 1 in hope that it will be only the first in a series, whose future volumes will be produced every 3-5 years. This way we can insure that the Primer keeps up with the current state of research. We hope that it will be a great resource for anyone trying to stay abreast of an ever-changing field.

Integrating public perspectives in sample return planning.

Planning for extraterrestrial sample returns--whether from Mars or other solar system bodies--must be done in a way that integrates planetary protection concerns with the usual mission technical and scientific considerations. Understanding and addressing legitimate societal concerns about the possible risks of sample return will be a critical part of the public decision making process ahead. This paper presents the results of two studies, one with lay audiences, the other with expert microbiologists designed to gather information on attitudes and concerns about sample return risks and planetary protection. Focus group interviews with lay subjects, using generic information about Mars sample return and a preliminary environmental impact assessment, were designed to obtain an indication of how the factual content is perceived and understood by the public. A research survey of microbiologists gathered information on experts' views and attitudes about sample return, risk management approaches and space exploration risks. These findings, combined with earlier research results on risk perception, will be useful in identifying levels of concern and potential conflicts in understanding between experts and the public about sample return risks. The information will be helpful in guiding development of the environmental impact statement and also has applicability to proposals for sample return from other solar system bodies where scientific uncertainty about extraterrestrial life may persist at the time of mission planning.

Planetary protection, legal ambiguity and the decision making process for Mars sample return.

As scientists and mission planners develop planetary protection requirements for future Mars sample return missions, they must recognize the socio-political context in which decisions about the mission will be made and pay careful attention to public concerns about potential back contamination of Earth. To the extent that planetary protection questions are unresolved or unaddressed at the time of an actual mission, they offer convenient footholds for public challenges in both legal and decision making realms, over which NASA will have little direct control. In this paper, two particular non-scientific areas of special concern are discussed in detail: 1) legal issues and 2) the decision making process. Understanding these areas is critical for addressing legitimate public concerns as well as for fulfilling procedural requirements regardless whether sample return evokes public controversy. Legal issues with the potential to complicate future missions include: procedural review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); uncertainty about institutional control and authority; conflicting regulations and overlapping jurisdictions; questions about international treaty obligations and large scale impacts; uncertanities about the nature of the organism; and constitutional and regulatory concerns about quarantine, public health and safety. In light of these important legal issues, it is critical that NASA consider the role and timing of public involvement in the decision making process as a way of anticipating problem areas and preparing for legitimate public questions and challenges to sample return missions.

Societal issues as Mars mission impediments: planetary protection and contamination concerns.

Societal and non-scientific factors represent potentially significant impediments for future Mars missions, especially in areas involving planetary protection. This paper analyzes public concerns about forward contamination to Mars and back contamination to Earth, evaluates major areas where lack of information may lead to uncontrollable impacts on future missions, and concludes that NASA should adopt a strategy that actively plans both the generation and subsequent management of planetary protection information to ensure that key audiences obtain needed information in a timely manner. Delay or avoidance in dealing with societal issues early in mission planning will increase the likelihood of public opposition, cost increases and missed launch windows. While this analysis of social and non-scientific considerations focuses on future Mars missions, the findings are also relevant for RTG launches, nuclear propulsion and other NASA activities perceived to have health, safety or environmental implications.

Anticipating the reaction: public concern about sample return missions.

NASA: Shifts in public attitude that may affect extraterrestrial sample return include increased public participation in the legal and regulatory environment, institutionalized public vigilance, politicization of technological debates and shifts in the nature of public decision-making, and a risk-averse public accustomed to mass media coverage that focuses on hazards and disasters. The ice-minus recombinant DNA experiment is used as an example of the effects of public opinion on scientific experimentation.^ieng