Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration

E S P I PERSPECTIVES 64

Arne LAHCEN Project Manager at the European Space Policy Institute

This Perspective analyses the importance of planetary protection in the future exploration of the Solar System. A major obstacle in this respect seems to be the contested scope of planetary protection. Although the more specific issue of planetary contamination has been addressed by the United Nations and various national space agencies, none of them have developed a holistic and all-embracing concept of planetary protection. As a consequence, the increasing number of planetary exploration probes, the prospect of a sample return mission - and maybe even manned missions to Mars in the long run - might have side-effects that limit future options, resulting in catastrophic events, or putting humankind in a position that might be regretted in the future, given the changing relationship between the environment and ourselves. Although the exploration of Mars is most relevant in this respect, the issues addressed in this Perspective might be relevant in establishing a sustainable relationship with the Solar System as a whole.

1. Introduction returned from other solar system bodies”1. This definition clearly exposes the two major Literally, planetary protection (PP) could be motivations for planetary protection. understood as the combination of all practices and actions that help protect one or more celestial The first one aims at protecting science as the bodies. In this wide interpretation, space utilisation unbiased implementation of exobiological has been an enabling asset in protecting the Earth experiments must be ensured in order to avoid and its inhabitants. Satellites have given us the false conclusions. In the context of forward opportunity to gather a diverse set of information, contamination this could lead to false positives which in turn helps us address issues of land use, (e.g. the discovery of traces of life on an climate change, atmospheric and oceanic extraterrestrial (ET) sample, while it is not monitoring, etc. indigenous), whereas false negatives are more likely to occur in the event of a planet-wide Most of the time, however, that is not the contamination by terrestrial life that would destroy presumed substance of the concept ‘planetary existing extraterrestrial life. protection’. Initially, the concept was postulated to prevent, or at least minimise, the impacts that can The second argument relates to safety. Often arise in the interplanetary exploration of celestial administered in the context of backward bodies by means of probes, robots or human contamination, it states Earth’s biosphere and the exploration. A major matter of concern in this Moon must be protected against possible respect is planetary contamination. According to contamination by extraterrestrial forms of life, which could be embedded in return samples or NASA, planetary protection is the term given to 2 “the practice of protecting solar system bodies carried by return probes or crews. For backward such as planets, moons, comets, and asteroids from contamination by Earth life, and protecting 1 Earth from possible life forms that may be Conley, C., Planetary Protection: About Planetary Protection, NASA, 2010, http://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/about/. 2 Goh, G.M. and Kazeminejad, B., “Mars Through the Looking Glass: an Interdisciplinary Analysis of Forward and Backward Contamination” Space Policy 20 (2004): 217–225.

ESPI Perspectives No. 64, December 2012 1 Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration contamination, the potential effects that are of matter and, where necessary, shall adopt concern about biohazards can be divided into appropriate measures for this purpose.”4 three broad categories: (1) large-scale negative pathogenic effects in humans; (2) destructive COSPAR, responsible for the compliance with the impacts on Earth’s ecological systems or PP provisions of the OST, has elaborated working environments; and (3) toxic and other effects methods for determining the bioburden5 threshold attributable to microbes, their cellular structures, on spacecraft and their components. As a result of or extracellular products.3 new knowledge about the habitability of other celestial bodies and the capability of terrestrial Various measures in terms of legislation and microorganisms to survive in extreme engineering have been developed to ensure a environments, COSPAR’s methodology has proper implementation and execution of planetary changed over time. Between 1964 and the mid- contamination practices. 1980s, a probabilistic approach was followed. It implied that space faring nationals had to conduct 2. The Focus on Planetary Contamination their unmanned exploration in such a way that the total probability of contamination during a –3 The idea of planetary protection already emerged specified quarantine period did not exceed 10 . In during the formation of the space program in the 1984, this quantitative policy was replaced by an United States. The International Astronautical entirely new and categorical approach, in which Federation (IAF) first took a look at the problem in the requirements for bioburden reduction were 1956, a year before Sputnik. Later, during the dependant upon the target body and the type of 1960s, the International Council of Scientific mission. Unions established the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). Despite its position as a To this effect, expertise and various practices consultative body of the United Nations only, this have been developed in-house by the different multidisciplinary committee has been able to space agencies engaged in solar system determine the standards upon which national exploration programmes. The bioburden practices has been based for over the past 40 assessment throughout spacecraft assembly, test years. and launch operations is based upon cleanroom cleanliness. Active bioburden reduction is mainly At the same time, the UN had created the achieved by dry-heat sterilisation and physical Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space cleaning methods by means of alcohol swaps. (UNCOPUOS). This committee has played a vital The latest developments include alternative role in the development of space law as a sterilisation methods such as gas plasma respected field of international law, and has treatment and UV irradiation. eventually led to a first legal basis for planetary protection. The first reference to the concept was Note that abovementioned legislation and included in the “Declaration of Legal Principles practices are only concerned with the issue of Governing the Activities of States in the planetary contamination. A genuine planetary Exploration and Use of Outer Space”. This UN protection conceptualisation, however, is wider resolution, however, did not contain any specific and requires a holistic, overarching perspective. mention of biological contamination. COSPAR in the meantime adopted resolution 26, which 3. Towards an Integrated PP Approach? provided the first international standards for planetary quarantine. One could, for example, argue that we need to extend the interpretation of planetary protection The crowning achievement in terms of planetary beyond the instrumental protection of scientific protection legislation was the “Treaty on Principles resources as expressed in the planetary Governing the Activities of States in the contamination policy.6 In this view, the objective of Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the planetary protection is much wider than merely Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”, also referred to avoiding planetary contamination. From a more as the “Outer Space Treaty” (OST). Adopted by distant perspective, this discussion on planetary the UNCOPUOS in 1963, article IX of the OST protection fits in a wider tradition of environmental defines that states “shall pursue studies of outer ethics. Different motivations in support of this space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth 4 United Nations, 1966: Res. No. 2222, art. IX 5 resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial Bioburden is the level of microbial contaminion, measured as the total number of microbes or by considering the microbial density. 3 U.S. National Research Council, Assessment of Planetary 6 Cockell, S.C. et al., “Effects of a Simulated Martian UV Flux Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions, on the Cyanobacterium, Chroococcidiopsis sp. 029.” Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009. Astrobiology 5.2 (2005): 127–140.

ESPI Perspectives No. 64, December 2012 2 Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration notion have been developed; basically they can reasonable objective measurement of value. This be grouped into four categories of arguments:7 might also be helpful in dealing with value based questions involving issues such as interaction with 1. The necessity argument implies that we need unaltered indigenous primitive extraterrestrial life forms.9 wilderness areas to create a complete and healthy concept of ‘culture’ and ‘civilisation’. Without them, we are more philosophically barbaric. Some scholars argue that 4. Future Challenges in some way wilderness areas, such as the concept of ‘planetary reserves’ represent ‘intelligence’, since the label wilderness is a product of an animal that can think Giving a more profound substance to the concept about the consequences of its actions on an environment of PP by means of aforementioned arguments and can work to mitigate them. might, however, prove very difficult and time- consuming. A more pragmatic approach therefore 2. The unknown and indirect benefits argument: currently, we don’t know what the unexplored might be might be to start from the concrete or conceivable able to tell us. If we keep representative regions intact or challenges that await us. In this respect, we can ‘off-limits’ until we really do understand them, we might distinguish three stages of further development in discover things that are of benefit to us at some future solar system exploration. The first group consists time. This argument applies to the possibility of life, but is in fact much wider. It could be argued that other celestial of missions with a mission design relatively similar bodies may offer us entirely novel cultural and aesthetic to previous missions; all of them are situated in experiences that may change the way we think about the the near future (before 2020 horizon). The second natural world. category includes sample return missions, as they

3. The future generations argument argues that even if entail the additional risk of backward we do not use a planetary resource ourselves, we should contamination. Finally, a human mission, to Mars protect it for future generations. The conservation of for example, is in so many ways more complex unaltered surface areas expresses respect for the options and challenging than previous categories that it and choices of future human beings and allows them the opportunity to make decisions about how they would use deserves special attention. (or not use) other celestial bodies. This notion is quite controversial among some ethicists on grounds of logic, 4.1 Near Future nevertheless most would probably agree that maximising the choices available for future generations is a responsible environmental position to take. As many robotic missions to celestial bodies are concerned with the quest for extraterrestrial life, 4. The intrinsic value argument is quite controversial we should anticipate eventual discoveries. While among scholars in terms of applicability and is even formal principles have been adopted for the questioned on metaphysical grounds since the dawn of Western Philosophy in Ancient Greece. Basically it states eventuality of detecting intelligent life in our that some things can have a value “in itself,” or “for its galaxy, the so-called SETI Principles, no such 8 own sake”. In this case it implies a planetary resource guidelines exist for the discovery of non-intelligent has its own value and should be left alone in appreciation extraterrestrial life within the solar system.10 As a of this value. This expresses the idea that value in an object exists independently of human valuation. Not too result, current scientifically based PP policies for many ethicists adopt this position, but nevertheless it is solar system exploration address how to an important point of discussion in ethics, particularly undertake exploration, but do not provide clear when applied to extraterrestrial bodies, most of which are guidance on what to do if and when non-intelligent presumed lifeless. This argument could be objected to by claiming that we, as humans, have the right to alter life is detected. Ironically, the underlying ethical environments outside our own habitat simply because we principles for microbial ET life are actually more have the means to do so. However, if we do think abiotic complex and practice-oriented than for intelligent objects have some type of intrinsic value, then from this emerges a need to respect the surface and subsurfaces ET-life. The resulting, more future-oriented, ethical of places such as the Moon, Mars and other celestial question relates to our behaviour towards a bodies in our solar system. putative non-intelligent extraterrestrial ecosystem and its home planet. Of all ethical concerns in PP, The last argument is closely related with the this might be the one most unusual and far relatively recent call for the development of a reaching. It can be argued that mankind has a Cosmocentric ethic. Such logic has been defined moral obligation to respect the integrity of as characterised by four features: it should (1) extraterrestrial ecosystems, just as we should do place the universe at the centre, or establish the on Earth. In this view, ET-ecosystems should universe as the priority in a value system, (2) continue to function essentially the same as they appeal to something characteristic of the universe did before their discovery. However, one might which might then (3) provide justification of value, argue that the motivation for this noble principle presumably intrinsic value and (4) allow for tends to introduce a dual standard, as we do not always apply this rule on Earth, not for all

7 Cockell, C. and Horneck, G., “Planetary Parks — Formulating a Wilderness Policy for Planetary Bodies.” Space Policy 22 9 Lupisella, M. and Logsdon, J., eds. Do we Need a (2006): 256–261. Cosmocentric Ethic? College Park: University of Maryland, 8 Zimmerman, M.J., “Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Value”, The 1997. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), 10 SETI Institute, “Declaration of Principles Concerning Edward N. Zalta ed., http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value- Activities Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial intrinsic-extrinsic/ Intelligence.” Acta Astronautica 21.2 (1990): 153–154.

ESPI Perspectives No. 64, December 2012 3 Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration humans, let alone all other organisms. The biotechnology, food irradiation, and toxic waste scientist and influential author Carl Sagan incineration. suggested that if there is life on Mars, we should do nothing with Mars, leaving the planet to the Historically, NASA and ESA engineers and Martians, even if they are only microbes.11 Others managers have been accustomed to reaching have suggested a more pragmatic approach, decisions through a highly technical, expert saying that we must explore the Solar System in a process with only minimal input from the public. way that keeps our options open with respect to However, decisions about PP will undoubtedly future life. Some even go as far as saying that we impose a heavy load of social concerns onto have no special obligation towards non-intelligent mission planning, shifting the locus of decision life, especially if the consequences substantially making into a more public and democratic realm. or unduly interfere with human interests of science Moreover, this is reinforced by the fact that and exploration.12 simultaneous controversies are often expressed on multiple levels. In the case of a sample return, A first step in terms of near-future PP is the there are typically three:13 development of a proper protocol and possibly the distinction between special and non-special • The ideological focus or public policy focus, often regions on Mars and other moons and planets. In dominated by philosophical questions such as ‘should we do it’. These kinds of arguments mostly have an ethical or view of the process of internationalisation in space moral overtone. Traditionally, this category also includes exploration, it might be recommendable to arguments administered by people who are opposed to approach this as an international undertaking. the general idea at the centre of discussion. Arguments to expand the focus of planetary protection beyond instrumental protection of scientific resources into other In terms of planetary contamination, to date there utilitarian and intrinsic value arguments belong in this is no standard certification process for approval of category. new bioload mitigation practices, whether for microbial reduction or assaying. It is essential for • The focus concentrating on formulation of appropriate technical policies and procedures, COSPAR to address this problem, especially with dominated by questions of ‘how should we do it?’ and the prospect of the new bioburden assay and emphasising a practical approach to decision making mitigation techniques available in the near future. (e.g., formulation of government regulations, devising acceptable permit review processes, developing effective controls, etc.). In the case of planetary protection, 4.2 Mars Sample Return COSPAR and the national agencies are characterised by this paradigm. Future sample return missions, most likely a Mars • A local focus, dominated by questions of ‘why do it here Sample Return Mission (MSR), will occur in a or now?’. This focus is interwoven with the ‘Not In My dramatically different setting than those of earlier Back Yard’ (NIMBY) phenomenon often displayed in space exploration programmes. Three main infrastructure projects. In this case it will occur in the site drivers can be identified in this process: (1) as a selection of Mars Sample Receiving Facilities on Earth. generalisation, society has grown more risk averse over time, with the trend expected to Nevertheless, the advent of technological decision continue in the foreseeable future, (2) these shifts making into the public arena and the related in public attitudes about risks and technology changing process of decision making about have been matched by corresponding changes in scientific and technological risks is not a problem legislation that have broadened the ability of per se. To minimise the chances of disruption to citizens and groups to challenge public decisions, future missions, space agencies must, however and (3) the higher potential risks involved in future first proactively analyse and develop information Mars missions are more likely to give rise to more in a number of key areas related to planetary public scrutiny and societal opposition. protection in terms of mission architecture, legal aspects, management, and research & development. Based on this information, risk Mars Sample Return missions could encounter assessment studies have to be performed and the intense scrutiny because of the public’s concern results hereof communicated properly towards the about possible introduction of extraterrestrial public. matter or organisms onto Earth and the accompanying environmental, health and safety Potentially, an all-embracing approach could also issues. This phenomenon is definitely not limited address differences in ‘ideological focus’ by to space utilisation; there are plenty of examples adapting existing techniques and methods that of scientific and technical projects that were have been developed in environmental sociology, frustrated by public challenges and concerns. such as Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for Common examples include nuclear power, example. This assessment technique tries to help

11 Sagan, C., ed. Cosmos. New York: Ballantine Books, 1985. 13 Race, M.S. “Societal Issues as Mars Mission Impediments: 12 Zubrin, R., ed. The Case for Mars. New York: Free Press, Planetary Protection and Contamination Concerns” Advances 1996. In Space Research, 15.3 (1995): 285–292.

ESPI Perspectives No. 64, December 2012 4 Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration individuals and communities, as well as exploration mission will confront us with more government and private-sector organisations, practical challenges that need addressing first. understand and better anticipate the possible social consequences for human populations and The need for sufficient quantities of oxygen, communities of planned and unplanned social water, and fuel resources to support a crew on the change resulting from proposed policies, plans, surface of Mars presents a critical logistical issue programmes and projects. of whether to transport such resources from Earth or manufacture them on Mars. In this regard, the All serious planning for MSR is founded on the opportunity of In Situ Resource Utilisation (ISRU) premise that the scope, complexity, and cost of technologies have the potential to significantly such a mission are beyond the likely resources of reduce launch mass delivered from Earth by any individual space agency. The size of the Mars producing propellants and consumables for life exploration community is expanding and at the support from indigenous Mars resources.16 same time, broadening of the scope of mission Besides the technical difficulties arising in this activities and international cooperation by both respect, we would need to consider how and why traditional and new space powers is taking place. we would use these extraterrestrial resources and In spite of the positive aspects of this tendency, how we deal with the waste that will be produced this factor is also likely to complicate the policies as a side-effect of the treatment process. and protocols relating to sample containment and biohazard evaluation. Although no major issues Given that forward contamination is a significantly have arisen to date, the international interest in greater risk with human missions than in robotic MSR raises the possibility that differences in missions, it could be argued some regions should national policies and legal frameworks of be avoided or let alone. This option is in line with concerned parties might complicate issues the idea of planetary parks on Mars, analogous to relating to sample quarantine and biohazard wilderness reserves on Earth. If these regions are certification. To minimise these impeding factors, of special interest for the science goals detailed protocols for sample containment, determined, it might be argued to land outside handling, and testing, including criteria for release these zones, and then go there by means of a from a sample-receiving facility, should be clearly Mars surface vehicle or by other means of articulated in advance of a Mars sample return. astronaut mobility. Also, these protocols should be reviewed periodically as part of the ongoing Science Another matter demanding profound reflection is Research Facility oversight process that will the position of the astronauts in the prevention of incorporate new laboratory findings and advances planetary contamination. Living humans invariably in analytical methods and containment carry associated microbial population that are technologies. The international partners involved necessary for our survival, and treating humans with the implementation of a MSR mission should by the same methods used to reduce the be a party to all necessary consultations, bioburden of spacecraft and robotic systems deliberations, and reviews.14 would kill them. This raises some interrelated questions on the status of astronauts as both 4.3 Manned Missions contaminated victims and vectors of contamination. For instance, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the slightest sign On Earth it is becoming ever clearer that our of fatigue or faintest weakness exhibited by existing moral principles, when it comes to life and returning astronauts might be interpreted as a the environment, are far from ideal or sustainable. possible symptom of extraterrestrial Consequently, we might not want to undertake contamination. How will they then be viewed and further space exploration based on the same treated? Typically, when humans themselves values we employ on Earth. One important benefit become contaminating agents there are two types of space exploration could, therefore, be of responses: an active one by means of philosophical in nature: developing a sustainable antibiotics or vaccines and passive by quarantine model of exploration and exploitation of precautions. Even if we would know what caused environments. In this sense, ethics can be the contamination, neither of those responses regarded as the next frontier of space 15 would be easy to apply in space or upon return. exploration. While this opportunity is hopeful in Additional concerns arise if the contaminant and developing a long-term perspective, most ethical its causes are unknown. Could we really envisage and societal aspects that arise in a human space permanent quarantine for returning astronauts who have embarked on a mission as envoys of 14 U.S. National Research Council, Assessment of Planetary mankind? Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2009. 15 Reiman, S. “On Sustainable Exploration of Space and 16 Smith, J.H. ed. In-Situ Resource Utilization for the Human Extraterrestrial Life.” Journal of Cosmology 12 (2010): 3894– Exploration of Mars: a Bayesian Approach to Valuation of 3903. Precursor Missions. Pasadena: JPL, 2006.

ESPI Perspectives No. 64, December 2012 5 Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration

Finally, in legal terms, it might be recommendable to develop some sort of Planetary Protection Code of Conduct for Crew of a Manned Mars Mission for the duration of stay on the red planet, inspired by the nature of the existing ‘Code of Conduct for the International Space Station Crew’. Such an international code, subscribed at least by all participating states, could set forth the scope, applicability and crew responsibilities in planetary protection practices and behaviour on the planet. It should also address the authority of the crew member given primary responsibility for the implementation of planetary protection provisions.

5. Conclusion

The precautious approach in Solar System exploration so far has enabled us to safeguard scientific interests in the research on cosmic habitability and the quest for extraterrestrial life forms. The approach is expressed by international legislation under the UN framework and the responsibilities of the Committee on Space Research. Practically, space agencies have developed the capabilities necessary to assess and keep the bioburden on spacecrafts limited to what would appear to be acceptable levels.

However, the principal focus on planetary contamination has obstructed the conceptualisation of an all-embracing and genuine planetary protection vision and policy. The practice of environmental ethics offers some interesting perspectives in this respect, practical implementation, however, proves difficult. The most pragmatic solution presented takes the concrete or conceivable challenges that await us in the future as a starting point. This results in an analysis of the challenges related to near future missions, sample return missions and human missions to other celestial bodies.

In itself, none of these challenges are fundamentally different from other challenges we are faced with on Earth. Neither is the issue of the level of risk acceptance or risk reduction by entities on different levels like individual researchers, explorers, and institutions. Nonetheless, it would be sensible to keep asking ourselves what price we are willing to pay for endeavours like space exploration in terms of resources, environmental responsibilities and human safety. In the long run, this link between space utilisation and ethics might have benefits in other societal fields as well.

ESPI Perspectives No. 64, December 2012 6 Planetary Protection in Future Solar System Exploration

Mission Statement of ESPI

The European Space Policy Institute (ESPI) provides decision-makers with an informed view on mid- to long-term issues relevant to Europe’s space activities. In this context, ESPI acts as an independent platform for developing positions and strategies.

Available for download from the ESPI website www.espi.or.at

Short title: ESPI Perspectives 64 Published in December 2012

Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute, ESPI Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • A-1030 Vienna • Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel: +43 1 7181118-0 / Fax: -99 Email: [email protected]

Rights reserved – No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Perspectives 64, December 2012. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing.

ESPI Perspectives are short and concise thought or position papers prepared by ESPI staff as well as external researchers.

Any opinion expressed in this ESPI Perspective belongs to its author and not to ESPI. The author takes full responsibility for the information presented herein.