Memorandum 95
Supplementary submission from Dr Robert
Marchbanks (BNSC)
RE: THE
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT
OF ORAL
EVIDENCE AT
THE SPACE
POLICY SESSION
OF 21 FEBRUARY
2007
In response to the above, I feel that the benefits
to SME's of investing in Space Medicine does not appear to have
obtained the emphasis it deserves. In response to Dr Spink's question
(Q465), Mr Gourlay outlined our collaboration with NASA to provide
a non-invasive (non-surgical) means of measuring intracranial
pressure (ICP). The relatively small amount of funding received
by ourselves from NASA, as mentioned by Mr Gourlay (Q485), should
be seen in a wider context since working as part of an international
team, the total value of the work far exceeds this amount. Meeting
the regulatory requirements for the European CE Mark and for US
FDA registration, entails much documentation for design and quality
control. This documentation is the main part of the work effort
and was undertaken by the NASA and Lockheed engineers. As an SME,
we have greatly benefited by working with these engineers and
their skills have now been transferred to my company. These skills
are immediately applicable and furthermore, the documentation
is precisely as required to meet Earth-based regulatory requirements
for our medical device. My company is not alone in benefiting
in this way, since I know of several US and European medical companies
that have equipment aboard the International Space Station. I
would like to stress the immediacy of this "win-win"
scenario, where money and expertise invested in space medicine
is directly transferable to earth-based gains. Applications go
well beyond just anaesthesiology.
With reference to Adam Afriyie question (Q473)
and Dr Fong's response. The return on investment goes beyond gains
made by the SME outlined above. I believe medicine itself has
much to benefit since Space provides a unique environment to study
human physiology. The Space environment challenges our misconceptions
and potentially provides conceptual leaps in our medical knowledge.
Our own experiment is an example of this. The space agencies world-wide
have spend several $100 millions on attempting to understand space
adaptation syndrome (space sickness) and the disorientation felt
by the space traveller that involves their balance system. Yet
with all this expenditure and effort much of which has been through
earth-based experiments, the causes remain illusive. There is
strong reason to believe that it is a lack of understanding of
certain fundamental principles of human physiology that is at
fault—misconceptions are providing the barriers both for
earth and space-based medicine. Space medicine and Space life
experiments challenge our understanding by providing a unique
microgravity environment that allows us to look at human physiology
from another angle and also acts as a catalyst for lateral thinking.
Finally I wish to endorse Mr Gourlay's vision
of our equipment that one day it may be used on Mars (response
Q465 and Q485). However, I wish also to add that as yet there
are no "definites" and no formal selection of projects
considering the long time scale for the Mars mission. I believe
that the UK can be a small but meaningful stakeholder in the return
to "the Moon programme" that is now underway, and that
we can inspire school children to be our future engineers and
scientists.
February 2007
| 
