Acta Astronautica 63 (2008) 1148–1151www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Worms to astronauts: Canadian Space Agency approach to lifesciences in support of exploration

Nicole Buckley∗, Perry Johnson-Green, Luc LefebvreCanadian Space Agency, Space Science, 6767 Airport Road, Saint Hubert, Quebec, Canada J3Y 8Y9

Received 16 August 2007; received in revised form 14 March 2008; accepted 28 March 2008Available online 26 June 2008

Abstract

As the pace of human exploration of space is accelerated, the need to address the challenges of long-duration human missionsbecomes imperative. Working with limited resources, we must determine the most effective way to meet this challenge. A greatdeal of science management centres on “applied” versus “basic” research as the cornerstone of a program. We have chosen tolargely ignore such a labeling of science and concentrate on quality, as determined by peer review, as the primary criterion forscience selection. Space Life Sciences is a very young science and access to space continues to be difficult. Because we havefew opportunities for conducting science, and space life science is very challenging, we are comfortable maintaining a veryhigh bar for selection. In order to ensure adequate depth to our community we have elected to concentrate our efforts. Workingin concert with members of the community, we have identified specific areas of focus that are chosen by their importance inspace, but also according to Canada’s strength in the terrestrial counterpart of the research. It is hoped that through a balancedbut highly competitive program with the emphasis on quality, Canadian scientists can contribute to making space a safer, morewelcoming place for our astronauts.Crown Copyright © 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The mandate of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA)is clear. It states that the CSA exists to “promote thepeaceful use and development of space, to advance theknowledge of space through science and to ensure thatspace science and technology provide social and eco-nomic benefits for Canadians and humanity.” In the LifeSciences Program (LSP) the mandate has been distilledto three objectives: (1) to use space to better understandlife; (2) to predict how life will adapt in space and thenre-adapt upon return to Earth; (3) to use this knowledge

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 450 926 4744;fax: +1 450 926 4766.

E-mail address: nicole.buckley@space.gc.ca (N. Buckley).

0094-5765/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright © 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.03.013

and develop technology to improve life on Earth andproduce safer space travel. As a government department,we have to balance the pursuit of basic knowledge withthe search for applications, and balance a space explo-ration agenda with a program that serves all Canadians,not just space-faring ones. In this paper, the rationale forkeeping equilibrium between the “basic” and “applied”science coupled with carefully chosen specific areas offocus is described.

2. Quality rules!

The conundrum remains, should limited space re-sources be used to support basic research or applied? Atthe CSA, we continue to support both lines of research.Our reasons for doing this are two-fold. First, the

N. Buckley et al. / Acta Astronautica 63 (2008) 1148–1151 1149

separation of research into basic and applied is not blackand white. Applied research may be directed at specificproblems but does not guarantee to solve them. But eventhen, it has not failed if it adds to what we know aboutthe problem or even, what does not work. Basic re-search is never completely disconnected from problemsencountered in space or on Earth and its indirect ap-proach may lead to direct solutions. Secondly, our man-date clearly states that we are to “advance knowledge”which can be fulfilled by both basic and applied re-search.

The next question becomes how do we create a bal-anced portfolio of science? Making quality, not utilityor feasibility, the primary selection criterion does this.We stack the deck in favor of quality first by definingthe areas of space life science focus where Canadianscientists are already strong in both applied and basicresearch. We follow this up with rigorous peer reviewfocused on quality of the science question being asked.When research is submitted that has more operationalapplication than science, we transfer the proposals toour colleagues in operational space medicine to imple-ment.

Through workshops and presentations, we educatescientists about the challenges of life in space and aboutthe unique environment of space. In addition, we workwith partners in Earth-based science to explore howspace can address terrestrial problems. By informing allscientists about what the space environment is, someways it can augment terrestrial science, and also theobstacles to space exploration, we stimulate scientiststo ask relevant questions in an informed manner. Oursupport will go the best questions, as determined bypeer review, whether the question is applied or basic.

To ensure, that all space opportunities are exploited,we have created a range of different opportunities basedon areas of interest or implementation. Announcementsmay impose limitations on what can be flown, for ex-ample, the low resource announcement of opportunity,but quality will still be the primary driver of what willbe implemented.

3. Basic and applied science: branches of the sametree

Louis Pasteur once said “There are no such thingsas applied sciences, only applications of science.” Yetthe distinction is often made between basic researchthat is undirected and applied science, which is tar-geted. Pasteur worked as an industrial problem-solverfor the French government. He was tasked with prevent-ing wine from spoiling into vinegar, sheep from dying

of anthrax and other problems. In the course of this tar-geted research, he became the father of modern bacte-riology.

In order to ensure the greatest social return on gov-ernment investment, it would seem obvious that ap-plied research should be emphasized. However, casestudies indicating that serendipitous science have madereal contributions to social and economic well beingwould suggest that the role of basic versus applied re-search should be examined more closely. Today, withthe trend towards applied science, most research be-ing conducted is applied or is at least described as be-ing applied. Scientists have learned to be very eloquentin describing the applications of their research whetherits goals are immediately applied or not. In the past,scientists were more candid about the nature of theirscience.

A study published in 1976 in the journal Science re-ports a systematic study of the importance of basic ver-sus applied Science in the advancement of the studyof cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, the leadingcause of death in the United States (Comroe and Dripps,1976). Through a series of consultations, the top 10 ad-vances in cardiovascular and pulmonary medicine forthe 30 years preceding the study were identified. Thekey articles that led to the advances were then identifiedand the supporting research classified as clinically ori-ented if the scientists even mentioned an interest in clin-ical application. Basic research was divided into “basicresearch unrelated to the solution of a clinical problem”and “basic research related to the solution of a clinicalproblem”. The latter referred to research where mecha-nisms underlying a pathological state were investigatedwithout any thought given to the potential impact onpatient care. Comroe and Dripps identified 529 new re-search publications as being key to the ten major med-ical advances.

When these papers were classified in one of six cat-egories covering a spectrum from basic to applied re-search, or in this case, non-clinical to clinical studies, itwas found overall, that approximately 60% of the keyresearch fell into one of the two categories of basic re-search. However, the relative contribution of basic ver-sus clinical studies leading to any specific advance wasvariable. From the study we can conclude that becausescience is applied, does not mean it will solve the prob-lem it targets and basic research does not result solelyin another article in a sea of arcane knowledge.

Science does not readily fall into neat categories ofapplied and basic. These terms refer to the outcome ofthe inquiry. Applied research that does not solve a prob-lem is of less value, or at least less applicable value,

1150 N. Buckley et al. / Acta Astronautica 63 (2008) 1148–1151

than basic research that does. In addition, most researchfalls in a grey zone with both basic and applied charac-teristics.

4. Science quality defined and implemented

Much discussion is made of peer review and it is im-portant to define in broad terms what is meant by theterm. Peer review refers to the evaluation of researchthat is completed, when publishing, or seeking sup-port when being proposed by experts in the same fieldalong defined criteria. Characteristics of the researchthat are commonly evaluated when looking at strict sci-ence quality include relative importance of the question,degree of innovation, likelihood of successful comple-tion of the work, publication record of the authors andstrength of the experimental design. Often additionalcriteria such as applicability of results, technical feasi-bility, and cost–benefit analysis are added in space flightresearch but these latter criteria do not describe quality.

Space research, particularly in the life sciences is anexciting but often frustrating endeavor. One pre-eminentresearcher described space experiments as events ratherthan a step in the science process. Restrictions in up-mass, down mass, crew availability and opportunities,ensures their rarity. For these reasons, it makes sense tohold space research to a higher standard than equivalentEarth-based studies. The limited number of experimentsmeans repeatability is not tested and there are no secondchances to tweak a protocol. It is tempting to plan forwhat can be done in space rather than what should bedone in space. To ensure that space science is the bestand not the most numerous or easiest (although we maydream that all this can be found in a single portfolio),we maintain a robust system of peer review that ratesproposal on standard criteria of quality.

In the LSP, the administration of peer review is un-der the purview of the program scientist. He or she isresponsible for identifying prospective reviewers bothin Canada and internationally, matching proposals withappropriate reviewers, and administering the process.After a first run of discipline expert reviews, a final re-view panel made up of leading scientists including bothspace and non-space experts is convened to make thefinal determination of proposal ranking. High-rankingexperiments are then reviewed for technical feasibilityby a panel of implementation experts. Comprehensivereports are provided to researchers that address weak-nesses in their proposals. If they are not selected forfurther support, they can address reviewers’ concernsto make their proposals more competitive for the nextround of selections. It is preferable to have complete

confidence that the science flown is the best sciencepossible rather than compromise.

Because of the paucity of flight opportunities, re-searchers have little experience in the design of scienceexperiments. In order to inform them of the challengesof space to result in stronger proposals, workshops,conference presentations and even a researcher hand-book are available. Discipline working groups, modeledafter the successful European Space Agency programhave been instituted to provide opportunities for knowl-edge sharing and collaboration with the possibility ofgreater efficiency for research. Plans are underway tohold some problem-specific workshops where opera-tional medicine personnel and scientists can engage inopen dialogue that can lead to quality targeted research.These are being designed to supplement existing disci-pline specific workshops to ensure that a balanced pro-gram of both basic and applied research is maintained.

5. Choosing focus

The LSP is a small but strong program within theSpace Science Branch. With limited resources, there isgreat incentive to ensure that the money goes to the mostpromising research. In the section above, the use of peerreview to ensure science quality has been described.Another tactic used is to limit areas of focus into space-relevant areas where Canadian scientists are particu-larly proficient. In the life sciences, these areas includeneuroscience and psychology, radiation biology anddosimetry, cardiovascular physiology and metabolism,developmental biology and bone and muscle research.These areas were selected based on environmentalscans, reviews of government reports and advice ofCanadian science experts.

For example, the recent decision of the Life Sci-ences program to broaden its research portfolio to in-clude psychology was based on a report of the NSERCGrant Review Panel for Psychology and BehavioralNeuroscience. In this study, results of an evaluation ofpsychology research quality demonstrated that Cana-dian psychology research can best be described as out-standing. Citation analyses from the SCI database showthat between 1988 and 1992, publications from Cana-dian psychologists had an average impact factor of 1.78(mean citations per paper), which was the highest ofall G7 nations and higher than the G7 average of 1.22.In terms of investment return, in 1988, Canadian psy-chologists published 104 papers for every 1000 sci-entists and engineers of all disciplines in the country,which made them the most productive of all G7 nations.The closest rival was reported to have 66 papers to its

N. Buckley et al. / Acta Astronautica 63 (2008) 1148–1151 1151

account. Given that psychosocial issues are recognizedas one of the major obstacles to long duration spaceflight, it makes sense to look to Canadian researchersto address this problem. The challenge remains in at-tracting psychologists to the area of space research, butthrough the programs described in the last section, weare making inroads.

The selection of the limited areas of focus does notlimit what can be done in space but rather accommo-dates a range of activities that complement each other.Developmental biology and radiation biology havecombined in research that the Canadian Space Agencysupports using model organisms such as the nema-tode Caenorhabditis elegans and the vascular plantArabidopsis thaliana. The knowledge we gain fromthese simple creatures, may aid in our understanding ofsome of the negative consequences of long-durationspace flight on humans.

By not limiting our studies to human research with di-rect applications, we increase the range of activities andlines of inquiry that can be explored in space. Also, weensure that any opportunities, however, limited, can beexploited in support of life sciences research in space.Recently, we have created an announcement of oppor-tunity for space science proposals that have minimal re-source (e.g. crew-time) requirements. In this case, weeducate researchers regarding the resource limitationsof space and challenge them to come up with creativeways to exploit opportunities. But, by maintaining highresearch standards, it is hoped that efficient utilizationcan be achieved without compromising on quality.

6. Summary

This paper describes the Life Sciences Program ofthe Canadian Space Agency and its emphasis is on sci-ence quality. We are confident that this is the best wayto make significant contributions to both safer humanspace flight and provide benefits to Canadians. We trustin the ability and curiosity of Canadian scientists to de-termine the most innovative and pertinent questions andthen to design robust experiments to address these ques-tions. To date, our portfolio consists of a mixture of ba-sic and applied research. We agree with Pasteur whenhe stated “There does not exist a category of scienceto which one can give the name applied science. Thereare science and the applications of science, bound to-gether as the fruit of the tree which bears it.” A richharvest will come from this approach stressing qual-ity because, to quote Canadian Nobel laureate, JohnPolanyi “It is folly to use as one’s guide in the selec-tion of fundamental science the criterion of utility. Notbecause (scientists). . . despise utility. But because. . .useful outcomes are best identified after the making ofdiscoveries, rather than before.” By maintaining highstandards of quality, science research done in space willprovide knowledge and utility.

Further reading

[1] J.H. Comroe, R.D. Dripps, Scientific basis for the support ofbiomedical science, Science 192 (1976) 105–111.