Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Challenges in Human Space Missions: A Space Refuge, Scientific Value, and Human Gene Editing for Space

  • Original Research/Scholarship
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines some selected ethical issues in human space missions including human missions to Mars, particularly the idea of a space refuge, the scientific value of space exploration, and the possibility of human gene editing for deep-space travel. Each of these issues may be used either to support or to criticize human space missions. We conclude that while these issues are complex and context-dependent, there appear to be no overwhelming obstacles such as cost effectiveness, threats to human life or protection of pristine space objects, to sending humans to space and to colonize space. The article argues for the rationality of the idea of a space refuge and the defensibility of the idea of human enhancement applied to future deep-space astronauts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Because Mars is the most probable destination for the future human space missions, when we discuss the issue of human space missions, we have in mind mostly missions to Mars. We discuss the significance of Mars, rather than other planets or our Moon, below.

  2. It is evident that a space refuge must be a very expensive project. For more arguments on that financial side of the idea of space refuge, and political, social and economic challenges for a public budget policy, see Szocik (2019).

  3. See the concept of the so-called disposable planet mentality in Schwartz (2019).

  4. For more detailed discussion on possible catastrophes on Earth and their relation to the idea of space refuge, see Szocik (2019).

  5. T. Wolfe (1979). The Right Stuff, Farrar, Straus and Giroux. This is a well-researched book involving hundreds of interviews with astronauts and detailing NASA procedures for astronaut selection. Subsequently (1983), it was popularised in the film of the same name.

References

  • Abadie, L. J., Lloyd, C. W., & Shelhamer, M. J. (2015). Gravity, who needs it? NASA Studies Your Body in Space. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/content/gravity-who-needs-it. Accessed 1 June 2019.

  • Abney, K. (2019). Ethics of colonization: Arguments from existential risk. Futures,110, 60–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, S. D. (2009). Cost-benefit analysis of space exploration: Some ethical considerations. Space Policy,25, 75–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, S. D., Denkenberger, D. C., & Haqq-Misra, J. (2015). Isolated refuges for surviving global catastrophes. Futures,72, 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billings, L. (2019). Colonizing other planets is a bad idea. Futures,110, 44–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campa, R., Szocik, K., & Braddock, M. (2019). Why space colonization will be fully automated. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,143, 162–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chodas, P. W., & Yeomans, D. K. (1999). Predicting close approaches and estimating impact probabilities for near-Earth objects. Advances in the Astronautical Sciences,103, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, G. (n. d.). Multigenic traits can have single genes with large impacts. Retrieved from http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc/protect.html. Accessed 1 June 2019.

  • Clynes, M. E., & Kline, N. S. (1960). Cyborgs and space. Astronautics,26–27, 74–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockell, C. (2002). Mars is an awful place to live. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,27(1), 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, I. A. (2012). Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency: Why human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone. Astronomy and Geophysics,53, 2.22–2.26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyranoski, D. (2018). Baby gene edits could affect a range of traits. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-07713-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyranoski, D., & Ledford, H. (2018). Genome-edited baby claim provokes international outcry. Nature,563, 607–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De La Torre, G. G., van Baarsen, B., Ferlazzo, F., Kanas, N., Weiss, K., Schneider, S., et al. (2012). Future perspectives on space psychology: Recommendations on psychosocial and neurobehavioural aspects of human spaceflight. Acta Astronautica,81, 587–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Waal, F. (2019). Prosocial primates: Cooperation and empathy. In Diversity in harmony–insights from psychology: Proceedings of the 31st international congress of psychology (pp. 64–84). Wiley.

  • Dzau, V. J., et al. (2019). Academies’ action plan for germline editing. Nature,567, 175. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00813-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett-Bakelman, F. E., et al. (2019). The NASA Twins Study: A multidimensional analysis of a year-long human spaceflight. Science,364(eaau8650), 127–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, J. (2019). Space colonization and existential risk. Journal of the American Philosophical Association. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2019.12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. P. (2019). Self-preservation should be humankind’s first ethical priority and therefore rapid space settlement is necessary. Futures,110, 35–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyngell, C. (2017). Gene editing and the health of future generations. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine,110(7), 276–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyngell, C., Bowman-Smart, H., & Savulescu, J. (2019). Moral reasons to edit the human genome: Picking up from the Nuffield report. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haqq-Misra, J. (2019). Can deep altruism sustain space settlement? In K. Szocik (Ed.), The human factor in a mission to Mars, space and society. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jebari, K. (2015). Existential risks: Exploring a robust risk reduction strategy. Science and Engineering Ethics,21(3), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanas, N., Sandal, G., Boyd, J. E., Gushin, V. I., Manzey, D., North, R., et al. (2009). Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions. Acta Astronautica,64(7–8), 659–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landeret, E. S., et al. (2019). Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature,567, 165–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanphier, E., et al. (2015). Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature,519, 410–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessing, D. (1982). The making of the representative for planet 8. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marino, L. (2019). Humanity is not prepared to colonize Mars. Futures,110, 15–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munévar, G. (2014). Space exploration and human survival. Space Policy,30(4), 197–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munévar, G. (2019). An obligation to colonize outer space. Futures,110, 38–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munsie, M., & Gyngell, C. (2018). Ethical issues in genetic modification and why application matters. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development,52, 7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musk, E. (2017). Making humans a multi-planetary species. New Space,5(2), 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NASA. (2014). NASA’s journey to Mars. Retrieved from NASA Website https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-journey-to-mars. Accessed 1 June 2019.

  • NASA. (2018). Space radiation risks. Retrieved from NASA Website https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/elements/radiation/risks. Accessed 1 June 2019.

  • Oman-Reagan, M. P. (2019). Politics of planetary reproduction and the children of other worlds. Futures,110, 19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, E. (2012). The moral standing of extraterrestrial life. Astrobiology,12, 976–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, E. (2019). Ethics for an uninhabited planet. In K. Szocik (Ed.), The human factor in a mission to Mars, space and society. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potthast, A. (2019). Alien attacks, hell gerbils, and assisted dying: Arguments against saving mere humanity. Futures,110, 41–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randolph, R. O., & McKay, C. P. (2014). Protecting and expanding the richness and diversity of life, an ethic for astrobiology research and space exploration. International Journal of Astrobiology,13, 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, M. J., & Straughan, R. (1996). Improving nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovetto, R. J. (2013). The essential role of human spaceflight. Space Policy,29(4), 225–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovetto, R. J. (2016). Defending spaceflight—The echoes of Apollo. Space Policy,38, 68–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J. S. J. (2011). Our moral obligation to support space exploration. Environmental Ethics,33(1), 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J. S. J. (2019). Space settlement: What’s the rush? Futures,110, 56–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, J. S. J. (forthcoming). The value of science in space exploration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Shelhamer, M. (2017). Why send humans into space? Science and non-science motivations for human space flight. Space Policy,42, 37–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonsen, L. C., & Zeitlin, C. (2017). Briefing to NAC HEO/SMD joint committee meeting Mars radiation environment—What have we learned? Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/mars_radiation_environment_nac_july_2017_finaltagged.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2019.

  • Smith, K. C. (2019). Homo reductio: Eco-nihilism and human colonization of other Worlds. Futures,110, 31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. M., & Davies, E. (2012). Emigrating beyond earth: Human adaptation and space colonization. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stoner, I. (2017). Humans should not colonize Mars. Journal of the American Philosophical Association,3(3), 334–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szocik, K. (2015). Mars, human nature and the evolution of the psyche. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society,68(12), 403–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szocik, K. (2019). Should and could humans go to Mars? Yes, but not now and not in the near future. Futures,105, 54–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szocik, K., Abood, S., & Shelhamer, M. (2018). Psychological and biological challenges of the Mars Mission viewed through the construct of the evolution of fundamental human needs. Acta Astronautica,152, 793–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szocik, K., Campa, R., Rappaport, M. B., & Corbally, C. (2019). Changing the paradigm on human enhancements. The special case of modifications to counter bone loss for manned Mars Missions. Space Policy,48, 68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szocik, K., & Tachibana, K. (in press). Ethical considerations of human enhancement and artificial intelligence for space missions. Astropolitics.

  • Szocik, K., & Wójtowicz, T. (2019). Human enhancement in space missions: From moral controversy to technological duty. Technology in Society,59, 101156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tachibana, K. (2019). A Hobbesian qualm with space settlement. Futures,110, 28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turchin, A. (2018). Approaches to the prevention of global catastrophic risks. Human Prospect,7(2), 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, D. (2012). Exit strategy: Profit, cosmology, and the future of humans in space. Anthropological Quarterly,85(4), 1045–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., & Yang, H. (2019). Gene-edited babies: What went wrong and what could go wrong. PLoS Biology,17(4), e3000224. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, S. (2013). Response: Against manned space flight programs. Space Policy,29, 229–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, P. E. (2018). Chasing captain America: How advances in science, engineering, and biotechnology will produce a superhuman. Toronto: ECW Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeitlin, C., et al. (2013). Measurements of energetic particle radiation in transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory. Science,340(6136), 1080–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszow, Sucharskiego 2 Street, 35-225, Rzeszów, Poland

    Konrad Szocik

  2. UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK

    Ziba Norman & Michael J. Reiss

Authors
  1. Konrad Szocik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ziba Norman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael J. Reiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konrad Szocik.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Szocik, K., Norman, Z. & Reiss, M.J. Ethical Challenges in Human Space Missions: A Space Refuge, Scientific Value, and Human Gene Editing for Space. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1209–1227 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00131-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00131-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation