Mars One: Human Subject Concerns?

ABSTRACT

Mars One is an ambitious, private plan to begin colonizing Mars using comprehensively screened volunteers who will make a one-way journey to the Red Planet. Its budget will be partially offset by broadcasting the adventure as a reality-TV program, beginning with the training of the astronauts, and ending with their settlement and, presumably, their deaths on the surface of Mars. In essence, the volunteers being sought for the Mars One project are human subjects in an experiment and ought to be treated as such under international provisions for the protection of human subjects or, at the very least, under a concern for the ethical conduct of a potentially groundbreaking project. In this article, I explore the question of whether the volunteers for Mars One are subject to standard protections for human subjects in scientific research, or to broader ethical concerns and protections for unique reasons, and whether they are being given the appropriate protections. I contend that, because of the individual and social impacts of the proposed project, and the nature and degree of risks, ethical concerns need to be addressed for this project to continue. Moreover, I recommend that an ethics committee be created to permanently oversee the project and provide guidance.

Notes

^1. See Mars One, http://Mars-One.com (accessed January 2017).

^2. A. Griffin, “Mars One: Final 100 Candidates Selected for Reality TV Show-Funded Mission to Red Planet,” The Independent, 16 February 2015, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mars-one-final-100-candidates-selected-for-reality-tv-showfunded-mission-to-red-planet-10048960.html (accessed February 2015).

^3. Ibid.

^4. Mars One, http://Mars-One.com (accessed January 2017).

^5. J. Devlin, “Mars One Plan to Colonize the Red Planet Unrealistic, Says Leading Supporter,” The Guardian, 23 February 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/23/mars-one-plan-colonise-red-planet-unrealistic-leading-supporter (accessed February 2015); and see Mars One, http://Mars-One.com (accessed February 2015).

^6. M. Kaufman, “A Mars Mission for Budget Travelers, Twenty Years and $100 Billion Could Get Us There, Panel Says,” National Geographic, 23 April 2014, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140422-mars-mission-manned-cost-science-space/ (accessed January 2017).

^7. D. Levesque, “Mars: One-Way Ticket to the Red Planet,” Liberty Voice, 15 January 2014, http://guardianlv.com/2014/01/mars-one-way-ticket-to-the-red-planet/ (accessed February 2015).

^8. “Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,” 52nd World Medical Association General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October, 2000.

^9. T. MacCallum and J. Poynter, “Factors Affecting Human Performance in the Isolated Confined Environment of Biosphere 2,” in Third Annual Mid-Atlantic Human Factors Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia, 1995; and C. Weyer et al., “Energy Metabolism after 2 y of Energy Restriction: The Biosphere 2 Experiment,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 72, no. 4 (2000): 946–953.

^10. S. Do et al., “An Independent Assessment of the Technical Feasibility of the Mars One Mission Plan,” in 65th International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada, 2014, http://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/90819 (accessed January 2017).

^11. Ibid.

^12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, “Protection of Human Subjects,” 45 CFR § 46 (2009), https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/ (accessed January 2017).

^13. D. Koepsell, “On Genies and Bottles: Scientists’ Moral Responsibility and Dangerous Technology R&D,” Science and Engineering Ethics 16, no. 1 (2010): 119–133.

^14. I. Van de Poel, “Nuclear Energy as a Social Experiment,” Ethics, Policy & Environment 14, no. 3 (2011): 285–290.

^15. Netherlands, Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (1998 and 2006).

^16. P. Lin, “Look Before Taking Another Leap for Mankind—Ethical and Social Considerations in Rebuilding Society in Space,” Astropolitics 4, no. 3 (2004): 281–294; D. McArthur and I. Boran, “Agent‐Centered Restrictions and the Ethics of Space Exploration,” Journal of Social Philosophy 35, no. 1 (2004): 148–163; P. Lin and K. Abney, “Introduction to Astronaut Bioethics,” posted on Slate, article from FutureTense, 8 October 2014, http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/10/astronaut_bioethics_would_it_be_unethical_to_give_birth_on_mars.html (accessed January 2017); and K. Abney and P. Lin, “Enhancing Astronauts: The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications,” in Commercial Space Exploration, edited by J. Galliott (New York, NY: Routledge, 2016).

^17. T. L. Beauchamp, “The Belmont Report,” in The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, edited by E. J. Emanuel (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008), 149–155. Also, see the Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, https://videocast.nih.gov/pdf/ohrp_appendix_belmont_report_vol_2.pdf (accessed January 2017).

^18. Note 10.

^19. D. Schulze-Makuch and P. Davies, “Destination Mars: Colonization via Initial One-Way Missions,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 66 (2013): 11–14.

^20. J. P. Kahn, C. T. Liverman, and M. A. McCoy, eds., Health Standards for Long Duration and Exploration Spaceflight: Ethics Principles, Responsibilities, and Decision Framework (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014).

^21. M. Kramer, “NASA Mulls Ethics of Sending Astronauts on Long Space Voyages,” Space.com, 7 April 2014, http://www.space.com/25352-nasa-long-duration-spaceflight-ethical-risks.html (accessed February 2015).