Memorandum 51
Submission from UK Space Biomedicine Group
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The UK Space Biomedicine Group (UKSBG)
was formed in 2004 and represents the interests of the UK space
biomedical community.
2. The space environment affects human physiology
in a number of unique ways. Increased understanding of these effects
is not only useful in preparing for exploration-class missions
to the Moon and Mars, but will also provide new diagnostic technologies
and therapeutic techniques for terrestrial health problems.
3. Space biomedicine also encompasses inter-disciplinary
technology development, and occupational health and passenger
safety issues for space tourism.
4. There is currently no support for space
biomedical research in the UK. This is due in large part to the
UK's policy of non-participation in programmes of international
human space exploration, and the lack of a suitable funding mechanism.
5. Several issues that were raised in the
Government discussion paper "Science and Innovation Investment
Framework 2004-14: Next Steps" are directly relevant
to the field of space biomedicine. These issues include bias unfairly
favouring established research fields, and funding mechanisms
that are not responsive to new research challenges.
6. Three recent reports have concluded that
there are advantages to UK involvement in human space activities:
the Report of the Microgravity Review Panel; the Report of the
Aurora Cross-Council Meeting; and most recently the Report
of the Royal Astronomical Society Commission, which undertook
a nine-month review and concluded: "We therefore recommend
that HMG re-evaluate its long-standing opposition to British involvement
in human space exploration."
7. The UK intends to participate in the
robotic aspects of the European Space Agency Aurora programme,
but plans to defer the decision on the human phase until much
later. The UKSBG believes this approach is fundamentally flawed,
and will lead to the exclusion of the UK from any significant
role in future programmes of human space exploration and deny
us the wide range of benefits that might otherwise be gained.
8. In addition to the unique scientific
opportunities that further participation in programmes of human
space flight promise to deliver, the UKSBG has also identified
educational and cultural benefits which might derive from these
pursuits. Human space flight is a first-class vehicle for science
education at all levels and is highly effective in facilitating
the communication of scientific ideas to lay public audiences.
9. In summary, the UKSBG welcomes this inquiry
into UK space policy and we strongly believe that there is a unique
opportunity at this time for the UK to become involved in human
space activities, particularly in relation to space biomedicine.
The inherent opportunities for high quality science, major advances
in human healthcare, development of existing UK expertise (as
represented by the UKSBG) and the inspiration of future scientists
should not be ignored. If this potential is to be realised then
it must be developed now, otherwise disintegration of UK expertise
and rapid international maturation of the field will soon exclude
the UK from any significant future involvement.
DETAILED SUBMISSION
10. The UK Space Biomedicine Group (UKSBG)
was formed in 2004 and consists of a network of UK-based medical
and science professionals with interests in space life sciences
(representing the majority of the UK space biomedical community)
who have a comprehensive understanding of this field and links
to national and international scientific institutions.
11. The space environment affects human
physiology in a number of unique ways and research targeted at
further understanding these changes is currently the focus of
space biomedical programmes worldwide, particularly with the new
emphasis on exploration-class missions at the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) and European Space Agency (ESA).
For example, the National Space Biomedical Research Institute
(NSBRI) in the USA has identified the following twelve research
areas as being of critical importance to human space exploration:
bone loss; cardiovascular alterations; human performance factors,
sleep and chronobiology; immunology, infection and haematology;
muscle alterations and atrophy; neurobehavioural and psychosocial
factors; nutrition, physical fitness, and rehabilitation; radiation
effects; sensorimotor adaptation; smart medical systems; technology
development; and space medicine.
12. In addition to their space implications,
these research areas are also relevant to healthcare and economic
prosperity on Earth, as improved understanding of these areas
will provide novel therapeutic approaches and diagnostic techniques
for a variety of terrestrial medical problems. For example, microgravity
in low Earth orbit causes progressive bone demineralisation which
occurs despite current countermeasures. The physiological mechanisms
underlying these effects are not well understood and increased
understanding of these mechanisms could dramatically improve the
understanding and treatment of osteoporosis, which has high levels
of morbidity and mortality in our increasingly elderly population.
13. Because space biomedicine is intrinsically
inter-disciplinary, there are excellent opportunities for technology
development. Some examples of existing benefits to healthcare
from space activities include improvements in medical imaging,
blood-pressure monitors, ECG electrodes, paediatric vision screening,
and infra-red aural thermometers. Space biomedicine also covers
the occupational health and passenger safety aspects of the developing
space tourism industry. This illustrates the broad scope of space
biomedicine and some of the opportunities for excellent research
in this rapidly developing field of science.
14. However, there is currently no funding
for this field in the UK, for two main reasons: firstly, the long-standing
Government opposition to any involvement in human space exploration;
and secondly, the current operational structure of the Research
Councils, which does not allow a funding mechanism for space biomedicine.
15. Earlier this year, the UKSBG submitted
a response to the Government discussion paper "Science
and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-14: Next Steps"
(March 2006) and several points are relevant to this inquiry.
Chapter 5 of the discussion paper highlights the importance of
"Supporting world-class health research" and states
that "Health Research and Development (R&D) is an area
of UK strength, promoting health and economic gains". It
seems inconceivable, considering our current strength, that the
UK will completely ignore a developing field of health research,
as this will undoubtedly result in a dramatic loss of opportunities
in the future.
16. Members of the UKSBG have previously
discussed the issue of space biomedicine with Government representatives,
and have been asked to provide evidence for the expected innovations
and spin-offs. This has been provided, but one should note that
this has not been required of existing fields of science that
are highly funded (for example, particle physics) and this is
contrary to the statement "The Government cannot, and should
not attempt to, predict where and in what form these innovations
will occur ..." in Chapter 2 of the discussion paper, which
rightly recognises the likely benefits from serendipitous discovery
and innovation inherent to any excellent field of research.
17. The current operational structure of
the Research Councils is the second main factor preventing the
progress of space biomedical research. The current division of
labour into the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Particle Physics
and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) creates a situation where
neither Research Council has the incentive to take responsibility
for funding this new field of study. Studies involving space life
and medical science generally fall between the stools defined
by the research councils.
18. As a direct result there is currently
no suitable funding mechanism which could be used to support the
development of a UK space biomedicine programme. This unsatisfactory
situation is relevant to Question 2 in the discussion paper: "The
Government invites views on measures to remove any remaining bias
which unfairly favours established research fields over innovative
ones. The Government also invites views on how funding mechanisms
can be made more responsive to new research challenges."
The UKSBG would like to request that this inquiry consider the
most suitable mechanism for funding the inter-disciplinary field
of space biomedicine.
19. At this time, there is a nascent effort
in the UK (represented by the UKSBG) to establish such a research
programme in space biomedicine, but this is currently only supported
by ad hoc funds and cannot be sustained indefinitely in
the absence of formal, centralised funding.
20. Although the UKSBG is primarily concerned
with the space biomedicine perspective, we would emphasise that
there are several other aspects of human space exploration that
are also directly relevant to this inquiry, and we would draw
your attention to three recent reports that have concluded that
there are advantages to UK involvement in human space activities.
21. The Microgravity Review Panel57[59]
(15 January 2003) chaired by Professor Wakeham recognised that
access to European Space Agency (ESA) microgravity facilities
"would support the work of many high-quality UK researchers
carrying out work of fundamental importance."
22. The Report of the Aurora Cross-Council
Meeting (7 May 2004) recognised that there is "significant
support from some parts of the community for the human component
of the Aurora programme for the purposes of planetary geological
exploration, medical research and for public outreach. It was
recognised that these arguments for participation in the human
spaceflight aspects reinforce each other."[60]58
23. Most recently, the Royal Astronomical Society
(RAS) Commission on the Scientific Case for Human Space Exploration,
chaired by Professor Close, OBE, undertook a nine-month review
of the evidence for human space exploration including the broader
context for the UK. Despite the Commission's self-acknowledged
initial scepticism, the Summary of their Report (18 October 2005)
stated that: "we have nevertheless been persuaded by the
evidence presented to us that there is science of profound interest
to humankind that can only be pursued on the Moon or Mars by the
direct involvement of humans in situ. We accept expert
opinion that autonomous robots alone will be unable to realise
those scientific goals in the foreseeable future." With regard
to the commercial implications of human space exploration they
stated that: "Evidence from NASA and ESA surveys have shown
a significant economic multiplier from investment in space projects,
with an additional overall gain in competitiveness."
24. In summary the RAS Commission59[61]
stated that: "The wider commercial, educational, social and
political benefits add justification to the substantial expenditure
that full UK participation in an international programme of Human
Space Exploration will require. The BBC poll of public opinion
suggests that there would be strong support for such involvement.
Recent developments across the world strongly suggest that after
a 30-year lull space-faring nations are gearing up for a return
to the Moon and then to Mars. It is hard to imagine that the UK,
one of the world's leading economies, would not be fully involved
in global scientific and technology endeavours with such strong
potential to inspire. We therefore recommend that HMG re-evaluate
its long-standing opposition to British involvement in human space
exploration."
25. There is now an excellent opportunity
for UK involvement in human space activities through our participation
in ESA's Aurora programme. The UK is currently signed up
to the initial stages and intends to participate in the robotic
aspects, but intends to defer the decision on the subsequent human
phase until much later. The UKSBG believe that this approach is
fundamentally flawed. If the UK follows its current course it
is highly likely that, after a further period of non-participation,
the current window of opportunity will have closed, and the UK
will not have the critical mass of expertise required to influence
the direction or progress of well-established international human
space research programmes. This will place the UK at a severe
disadvantage in the later stages of Aurora, and exclude
us from the major scientific, technological and economic benefits
of a thriving international space biomedical research community.
It is also likely that this would exclude the UK from any significant
participation in the human aspects of Aurora altogether.
26. Such a situation would undoubtedly fail
to inspire students into science, and many of the scientists that
the UK will produce will recognise the lack of opportunity in
the UK and emigrate, leading to a brain drain and a further decline
in UK science. If the UK is to have any chance of playing a leading
role in the future of space biomedical research, and gain the
broader benefits of participation in human spaceflight, then further,
formal involvement in human space exploration is required now.
27. With regard to the terms of reference
of this inquiry:
— there is currently no investment
in UK space biomedical research and therefore the UK has no international
competitiveness in this sector;
— current space policy will deny the
UK the significant benefits to be gained from participating in
the human aspects of the ESA Aurora programme;
— there is no UK provision for space
biomedicine, which is a significant field of space-related research;
and
— the UK is ignoring its skill base
in this area, which is in urgent need of support.
28. In summary, the UKSBG welcomes this
inquiry into UK space policy and we strongly believe that there
is a unique opportunity at this time for the UK to become involved
in human space activities, particularly in relation to space biomedicine.
The inherent opportunities for high quality science, major advances
in human healthcare, development of existing UK expertise (as
represented by the UKSBG) and the inspiration of future scientists
should not be ignored. If this potential is to be realised then
it must be developed now, otherwise disintegration of UK expertise,
against a the background of the rapid international maturation
of the field, will soon exclude the UK from any significant future
involvement.
29. UKSBG recommendations for action:
— reconsider the policies that currently
exclude the UK from all human space exploration activities;
— support and develop existing UK space
biomedical expertise;
— create a suitable funding mechanism
to allow space biomedical research to be undertaken in the UK;
and
— recognise the danger of deferring
the decision on the human aspects of Aurora, and commit
to full participation as a major investment in the future of UK
science and healthcare.
October 2006
59 57 http://www.microgravity.ac.uk/recommendations.pdf Back
60
58 http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~iac/Cross_Council_Report.pdf Back
61
59 http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/Final%20Report%20October%202005.pdf Back
| 
