7

Strategy and Challenges for Disciplinary Balance, Infrastructure, and Access and a Vibrantly Sustained Space Science Community

With the development of advanced reusable rockets and the resulting significant decrease of payload launch costs over the past decade (Roberts 2022), together with anticipated future reductions in cost, the United States has an unprecedented opportunity to be the leader in crewed and uncrewed missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. (See Figure 7-1.) To realize this opportunity, the United States needs to also be among the international leaders in the innovation of science and technology in space. Over the next decade, this unique opportunity could enable transformative advances in both the biological and physical sciences (BPS)—from successfully sustaining deep-space missions and lunar habitats to discovering the origin of the dark matter and energy that make up most of the universe. At the same time, society faces numerous current challenges on Earth arising from the impacts of climate change and population growth on both the environment and civil organization, including a rising occurrence of pandemics and maintaining resilient and sustainable food and manufacturing and supply chains in the face of volatile access to resources. Across the world, these instances can exacerbate related challenges in managing socioeconomic disparities, realizing the underutilized potential in our full human diversity, and ensuring equitable impact of collective investments. Research in space exploration supports all of these challenges and opportunities. However, over this same timeframe, increasing international competition is weakening U.S. leadership in space exploration, the underlying science and technology talent that supports that national effort, and the associated workforce development. Therefore, it is timely and important that the United States, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), seizes the opportunity of the coming decade to ensure a future for space exploration by addressing these challenges through fundamental discovery and technology innovation in this always aspirational and inspirational endeavor.

In response to the prior decadal survey, Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era (NRC 2011), NASA stood up the Division of Space Life and Physical Sciences Research and Applications (SLPSRA) in the Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Mission Directorate. This NASA unit is now named the Division of Biological and Physical Sciences (BPS Division) and is relocated in the Science Mission Directorate (SMD). These moves by NASA resulted in a scientifically engaged division that is moving rapidly to accommodate the science-intensive needs of space exploration. In lockstep, the science community—including principal investigator faculty, students, and postdoctoral researchers funded by NASA—has developed a level of accomplishment and stability. This effort and engagement between the federal government, U.S. research community, and general public—as the current taxpayer supporters of and future beneficiaries of

and the workforce enabling BPS research—is now in need of significant expanded investment if the science is to thrive and contribute to ambitious future space exploration missions and Earth benefits of research outcomes.

Finding 7-1: NASA responded to the 2011 decadal survey by standing up what is now the BPS Division within SMD. As a result, the scientific community in these important and diverse fields has begun to be rebuilt. Importantly, however, much work remains to establish a healthy and sustainable BPS community with resources commensurate with its long-term scientific and technological mission. Much of this work

lies in the area of funding beyond simple inflationary adjustments toward large investments that scale to the work needed, similar to the levels that existed during the space shuttle era.

As described in Chapter 2, many of the impressive research outcomes in BPS research have come from the gradual rebuilding, resourcing, and coordination of the U.S. academic space science research community with NASA-employed scientists; divisions of other government agencies (e.g., National Institutes of Health [NIH] and National Science Foundation [NSF]) that share scientific goals; industry entities (typically for-profit commercial entities) that serve as technical solution providers, research collaborators, or sponsors; and the international community of space explorers, including those whose partnerships have sustained International Space Station (ISS) operations and access for BPS experiments. This rebuilding phase over the past decade has been steady but slow. However, the rapid changes in world events, the government-anchored low Earth orbit (LEO) research infrastructure, the nascent standup of the U.S. Space Force, and the role of the private sector are such that BPS research progress will not maintain momentum without increased attention and investment. Rather, lessons of the past decade of retreading the space science research community, infrastructure, and priorities need to inform strategy to ensure U.S. leadership in BPS research and its applications in the coming decade. Some of these lessons are captured in Finding 7-2, which summarizes the successful elements of change over the prior decade.

Finding 7-2: A robust and resilient BPS program requires

• A healthy and regular cadence of proposal calls and grant dollar awards that are consistent with sustaining a diverse and productive BPS community over the course of the next decade, including the necessity of training a diverse scientific workforce of sufficient size and caliber to maintain the BPS community over a generational timescale;
• Broadened and more inclusive participation in the U.S. BPS community, including diversity of both scientific expertise and lived socioeconomic experience, recognizing the slow progress in attracting and retaining women and underrepresented minorities into graduate and postgraduate research roles;
• A total science budget sufficient to meet current national needs and international competitor/collaborator challenges;
• Interactions with other U.S. government and non-U.S. space agencies necessary for optimal BPS community productivity in science and technology development; and
• Significant awareness and collaboration with the emerging commercial space science, platforms, and activities, as appropriate for BPS program goals.

Throughout this report, the critical role of the ISS as a research platform has been recognized as critical to this community of science and the resulting body of work. The largest portion of the current state of work reviewed in Chapter 2 is derived from ISS experiments. Many of the key scientific questions (KSQs) demand experiments that require the extended microgravity exposure afforded by the ISS. Yet the transition from the ISS era to the era of multiple commercial LEO destinations (CLDs) is not yet clearly stated. NASA sees itself as a consumer, along with commercial entities seeking orbital laboratories, of scientific capabilities in CLDs. While NASA has published resource needs, actual design requirements are not yet available (NASA 2023a).

Finding 7-3: The private sector is engaged in development of CLDs, on which the nation’s research in BPS will depend. However, science-design requirements have yet to be published. This delay may result in an unintended consequence that CLD companies develop revenue sources to focus on commercial markets, deemphasizing government-funded or fundamental research for public benefit.

As discussed below, the BPS Division at NASA and BPS research community across the nation are severely underfunded with respect to the scope and technical challenge of science that is required to meet the national needs for space exploration, as well as other U.S. national competitiveness and national security interests that depend on advancement of the same science.

Recommendation 7-1: Because the nation benefits from global leadership in space science and technology, and given the emergence of commercial platforms that can be tasked to the nation’s science, NASA should:

• Seek significant funding increases for biological and physical sciences with new monies or through rebalancing the portfolio across the Science Mission Directorate, and in coordination with other U.S. government agencies, as the community needs to grow significantly in size to reach the science goals of the nation;
• Actively engage commercial spaceflight firms, using science funding as a driver and with all due haste, to ensure that science needs are met with clear priority, guaranteeing that national science needs are enabled along with those of potential commercial customers using those platforms; and
• Ensure that the funded science community fully engages diversity and inclusivity in the pursuit of the nation’s space exploration science priorities.

Commercial firms may have their own interests that are not compatible with those of government customers. They may also lack the long-term stability and sustainability of government projects. Based on recent and current experience, navigating these engagements will not be easy.

GRAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN SPACE

Strategic Overview

The next decade will provide unparalleled prospects for BPS in space. The extraterrestrial environment—with its widely varied temperatures, pressures, toxicities, gravitational forces, cosmic radiation, and vast distances—represent extraordinary challenges for exploration, as well as grand opportunities for advancing fundamental science and technologies to benefit humankind. The strategy for BPS scientific priorities—and the underlying technology and workforce development required to meet those priorities—needs to be grounded in the reality that major advances require interdisciplinary expertise, sustained capital investment, and international partnerships in the public and private sector.

Past decades—including the prior decade outlined in Chapter 2—provide ample examples of NASA’s contributions in BPS, ranging from medical studies of aging and bone loss and development of plant growth platforms to enhance astronaut health, to tests of general relativity that led to the now invaluable and ubiquitous global positioning system (GPS). BPS discoveries also led to understanding and development of new transport and processing techniques for liquids, soft matter (foams, gels, granular systems), optics (lasers), and pastes for additive manufacturing (AM).

Over the next decade, the stage has been set for transformative progress in BPS research and applications by the wide variety of modern space vehicles, along with powerful new scientific tools, measurement instruments, and analytical techniques enabled by access to BPS “big data,” machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI). These rapidly expanding capabilities fundamentally change the way that science and technological development will be done, allowing vast quantities of high-precision data to be acquired and analyzed autonomously.

An important example can be found in the revolutionary advances in the biological subfields of “-omics”—originally genomics, but which now includes transcriptomics, epigenomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, as well as many subfields within these domains. Taken together, these tools are creating a comprehensive picture of the reference genome, physiological state, and dynamic responses of an organism, including the response to the unique environments in space. These observational technologies that support prediction of the response of organisms to space are complemented by new technologies that enable control and design of organisms for the space mission environment. For example, tools for genetic manipulation, including the adaptation of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)-associated systems, bring capabilities to far more easily adapt plants and microbes for space applications, which include engineering increased resilience to the conditions of space, augmented metabolisms for biosynthesis of key nutrients and high-value chemicals and materials, and

bioprocesses that convert in situ resources and valorize waste streams for use by the mission. Space-based genetics could also enable response to mission surprise wherein drugs, nutrients, or materials not originally shipped to space are found to be needed. Modifying plants and microbes to biosynthesize these resources where logistical delivery of these needs is impossible or too expensive could be both economical and the only possible route to respond to scarcity when far from Earth. Concurrently, there have been significant advances in robotics, laboratory automation, and human-machine interaction for both measurement and production processes that enable AI-supported laboratories of increasing automation that can perform critical tasks and experiments. Development of efficient and sustainable bioprocesses for space has significant implications for development of sustainable biotechnologies for Earth. The time is therefore ripe for development of an integrated biotechnological research and development program for space.

Equally exciting are the frontiers in the physical sciences that are accelerated in recent years by highly sensitive quantum and precision instruments, including enhanced microscopy and optical atomic clocks, and again aided by big data and AI techniques. The physical science in space community is now ready to answer some of the most fundamental questions about dark matter and energy, non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, quantum information, and gravity. Much of the required instrumentation can also be used to further technology with diverse and practical utility for space exploration, including materials with properties accessible only from non-equilibrium processing, materials made with responsive active matter, materials and methods for additive and digital manufacturing, and quantum sensors and clocks to aid autonomous spacecraft and vehicle navigation. A deeper understanding of transport phenomena in the space environment, building on progress over recent decades, is essential for enabling expanded space exploration far from Earth, as well as for providing fundamental insights that are valuable for manufacturing and resource processes on Earth. Similarly, deepening understanding of space-based combustion science will inform fire safety and supercritical water oxidation that may sustain life beyond Earth’s surface. Last, advances in design and manufacturing, including design-for-disassembly and the recovery and reprocessing of materials from products and natural resources, have received a renewed U.S. focus in the past decade that couples to societal needs for Earth resource stewardship and workforce opportunities. These advances are not unique to BPS research in space environments, but fortunately can be leveraged to support operations more autonomously to increase reliability, reproducibility, and defraying the cost of astronaut time.

Key Scientific Questions and Research Campaigns

The grand BPS opportunities over the next decade emerged in this report to encompass three themes and 11 KSQs spanning, and often linking, the biological and physical sciences. (See Table S-1.) These questions underpin a vision and comprehensive strategy for international leadership in transformational BPS and high-impact technological applications and serve as the predictably resourced base effort recommended for BPS in the coming decade. A focus on this set of KSQs will help the United States establish leadership in knowledge across three themes: adapting to space during the travel phase, living in space for extended durations, and leveraging space to reveal phenomena that are otherwise obscured by features of Earth’s environment, including its gravitational forces.

These 11 KSQs were identified through broad community input, expert panel discussion, and steering committee deliberation—on consideration of many worthy, ambitious scientific questions and topics that were articulated and advocated for by both seasoned and emerging space science experts in the BPS research community. This decadal report could have summarized 110 interesting and important scientific avenues of discovery to pursue in the coming decade, which would have produced admittedly more narrow questions aligned with academic discipline boundaries and funding lines. Indeed, the selection criteria described in Chapter 3 and the resulting KSQs signal a strong level of intellectual cohesion, convergence, and maturation in BPS space research. That progress in prioritization and discipline integration is owed to the hard work emerging from the prior decadal and mid-decadal recommendations; to insights provided by the Committee on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space (CBPSS) to the community and NASA on implementing those recommendations; and to NASA in collaboration with other government agencies, the ISS National Laboratory, and the private sector as champions of space exploration.

A strategy that presents sufficiently focused, persistent, and resourced pursuit of these KSQs will enable space exploration in LEO, on the Moon, and on the way to Mars. Such a strategy will maintain the interest and

endorsement of the U.S. public because the research outcomes of this BPS research will confer benefits to society on Earth in addition to the inspirational images and accomplishments attained in those space environments. Together, these KSQs synergistically advance human knowledge about the universe; facilitate extraterrestrial survival, exploration, and thriving in sustained missions in orbit and on extraterrestrial surfaces; and enable profound terrestrial impact. Progress on each of these KSQs is critical. Successful implementation of this strategy will necessarily require engagement of other government agencies and the private sector, as well as international partnerships. These KSQs offer the basis for creation of numerous possible calls for proposals to which individual investigators, small teams, and even a few substantial centers could submit transformative ideas.

An implicit aspect of this strategy is for NASA and the community of BPS investigators to intentionally and deliberately sunset the space-based research efforts of questions for which the answers are sufficiently clear to enable space exploration, or that fail to rise to a level of transformative discovery that demands use of our limited space research resources. This term “sunset” is a specific although gentle indication that projects will end, and NASA BPS funding for those projects will cease, so that the community can apply the valuable resources of taxpayer funds and space-based crews and resources to other, now more pressing questions. The research intensity and resource of at least some of these KSQs need to be answered sufficiently well within the decade in order to be sunset.

Recommendation 7-2: To maintain research campaign momentum, NASA should require external advisory committees to evaluate research campaign team progress and emergent technologies annually.

The majority of these KSQs provide the knowledge development that is necessary for adapting to and living in space. The other KSQs are equally important to transformational science that probes phenomena that are simply inaccessible on Earth. However, to truly move the needle for human exploration and understanding of our universe, there is also a need for more-coordinated, larger-scale campaigns with a strong mission objective that is greater than any one scientific question. Not all KSQs require a campaign-level effort to address forcefully and completely; however, all research campaigns need to enable answering at least one KSQ among other benefits. Campaigns are aimed at the most important aspects of the KSQs that would require more integrated planning and team coordination, and that would include ideally reusable, extensible capabilities and infrastructure beyond the central campaign goals to enable the broader community to accelerate space science inquiries. Research campaigns need to both inspire and enable space exploration, as well as both capture the imagination of Earth-bound citizens and return benefits of knowledge, products, or technological capabilities to society. Two notional research campaigns were recommended in Chapter 6. Their selection was informed by evaluation for technical risk and cost estimation (TRACE)—an effort new to the BPS space research community and to this decadal survey series. (See Appendix E.) To move from these two notional research campaigns—informed by broad community input and 2 years of study and evaluation by diverse experts comprising the committee and panels—to coordinated teams and scopes, further workshopping and requests for proposals would be required. Additionally presented are one whole-of-government initiative with national objectives broader than BPS research and one research mission concept that can be de-risked and developed in this decade to enable BPS research outcomes in the following decade.

These research campaigns are a new and thus higher risk element of NASA BPS support and programming and represent a collectively higher cost than single-investigator projects that utilize existing research infrastructure. Thus, a regular process of evaluation including external (non-NASA) advisory committees for each research campaign is warranted. These bodies would be advisory to NASA and also serve as a valuable resource to the research campaign leadership, similar to external advisory committees of major Earth-based interdisciplinary, multi-site research centers. It is possible but not necessary that these external advisory committees comprise members of the CBPSS administered by the Space Studies Board of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and/or members of the nascent Biological and Physical Advisory Committee (BPAC), which was chartered to provide recommendations to NASA on BPS scope and priorities.

Table 7-1 summarizes the themes, notional research campaigns, initiatives, and KSQs, along with the specific space environments hosting such BPS investigations. This table summarizes the recommended programmatic

TABLE 7-1 Biological and Physical Science (BPS) Research Themes, Notional Campaigns, and Key Scientific Questions in Space Environments

^a See Chapter 6.

^b See Table 3-1 and Chapters 4 and 5 for fuller discussion of these KSQs.

activities of BPS research for the coming decade. Fuller discussion of the KSQs in Chapters 4 and 5 outline the aspirational benefits of those efforts and investments to society. This latter aspect of broader understanding of and appreciation for such BPS research is the answer to the natural “so what?” question that space science experts will seek to convey to non-experts in their specialized field, including fellow scientists and non-scientist citizens.

Such research campaigns supplement and augment the steady funding of the recommended KSQs. The two recommended NASA-resourced campaigns are important new efforts to design, resource, and evaluate mission-based BPS research with an anticipated envelope of growing, then sustained, and then reduced reliance on NASA support as the campaign objectives are achieved over approximately a decade. The KSQs, in contrast, require steady and sustained effort as a set over the course of the entire decade; some may be addressed in whole or in part as an element of a research campaign, and others will be addressed entirely outside of a research campaign although perhaps using the same or related ground-based or space-based research infrastructure. Note that the majority of KSQs include explicit consideration of living organisms, including the potential for organisms in the animal kingdom as model systems that may predict answers for human responses during adaptation and sustained living durations in space. The two recommended, notional research campaigns do not explicitly include use of animal models, and thus addressing KSQs related to mammalian cells and to animal organisms remains part of the critical base effort of BPS research.

These campaigns need to be adaptable but at the same time be resilient to scientific and technological change and surprise, and also nurture a U.S. talent base to drive researchers into the next decade sustainably and thus maintain leadership in space-based biological and physical sciences. Importantly, multiple campaigns (at least two) over the coming decade will be essential given the diverse scientific disciplines in BPS.

Challenges

Realizing the grand opportunities for BPS in space over the next decade will require systematic processes to recognize, address, and manage many significant challenges. Any ambition with this scope has, as its central challenge, the prioritization and ultimately right-sizing and scheduling of investment in the critical questions and campaigns. The critical aims of this BPS management challenge are to

1. Balance an agile and effective ability to assess the most critical areas for new investment, further investments, and ramp-down as research and development progresses with investment in longer-term programs, such as research campaigns, whose large size and persistence are justified by the significance of their deliverables but whose effectiveness can be tracked and improved over time as well.
2. Ensure that the funding levels and their investments are sufficient to train, engage, and maintain a sizable and interactive scientific and technological workforce spanning multiple disciplines, career stages, and socioeconomic backgrounds while managing the goals of (1).
3. Develop the essential ground- and space-based technologies (instruments, vehicles, and data analysis tools); reusable infrastructures (i.e., physics and biology laboratories and new “cassettes” that hold different classes of experimental types that can operate within them), driven by the highest-priority science identified in (1); and properly subsidized protocols for ensuring their usability by both the core BPS and research campaign scientists.
4. Ensure alliance and cooperation across national and international public and private organizations engaged in space-based research, operations, and industry such that the above goals can be met efficiently and with maximum benefit to the U.S. public.
5. Communicate regularly and effectively to the U.S. public and all stakeholders about the value provided by the BPS program through advances in fundamental scientific knowledge, new technologies critical to expanded space exploration, and capabilities that can improve life on Earth.

A challenge internal to the scientific community, including both NASA-employed scientists as well as NASA-funded researchers in academia and industry, is the discipline to end research pursuits deliberately and gracefully. Important to the framing of this decadal survey, well-posed questions are anticipated to have useful answers

(as well as to beget distinct questions). Challenges external to the BPS community are numerous in the coming decade. Among the most important external factors that provide challenges to a successful BPS program are

• Scientific, political, and national priorities and investment within and beyond NASA;
• The rapid pace of scientific and technological change and emerging scientific opportunities;
• International collaboration and competition on Earth and in the space environment;
• Private investment in space activity, both domestic and international, and including private crews and missions;
• NASA mission continuity and coordination across directorates and centers; and
• Platform capabilities and associated uncertainties with space vehicle access and launch, including orbital mechanics that can affect launch cadence (critical to some BPS space science).

Success of the BPS program over the next decade will require successful management of the internal and external challenges outlined above. Such management will require regular evaluation of scientific, technology, and programmatic progress, including an evolving assessment of the key scientific questions, research campaigns, ground-based programs, and recommendations in this and future decadal surveys and mid-decadal assessments. It will also be essential to have expert assessment of and input on non-technical challenges such as managing the public–private partnerships, competitions, and transition of publicly funded invention to industry and ensuring a vibrant, diverse, and sustained BPS community. Decision rules that establish a priori sensibilities for response to changes in resource levels and prioritization based on favorable and unfavorable scenarios with respect to today (2023) provide a pathway to predictable, smoother organizational approaches to external disruptions. (See Box 7-1.) This approach favors attention to outcomes (i.e., actually answering prioritized scientific questions deemed critical for space exploration and use) rather than to a process that dilutes focus as resources contract or expand. Practices established in other recent societal disruptions at the global scale (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic) and local scale (e.g., emergency responses in publicly accessible buildings) indicate the value of table-top exercises to practice the cadence and communication of such decisions under stressful circumstances.

The decision-making framework described in Box 7-1 is powerful in its simplicity and brevity; intentional in its reliance on qualitative annual comparisons rather than specific resource thresholds; and demanding of its implementation team. When the decision rules are this few in number and this clear in consequence, the full community (of researchers and the public, private, and international parties) can read and prepare for the signals that will maintain momentum in answering KSQs and competing for multi-year research campaigns. When the measure is relative in comparison to the prior year, the guideposts are spaced closely enough to reduce uncertainty in continuity of progress for only demonstrably impactful efforts. When incentives for broadening representation and perspectives of BPS researchers are applied to both NASA as the key sponsor and the community of research leaders who select and build their research teams, a sense of shared values and responsibility for growing the inclusive U.S. talent pipeline without apology is clear at the outset. When the choices are laid out so starkly, it is imperative that the decision team becomes practiced in evaluating external conditions regularly and building internal and community trust for sound responses to scenarios. The sense of urgency and laser focus on multiple prioritized outcomes is a natural by-product of such a framework, appropriate to the ambitious and competitive/collaborative uses of the space environment that the United States has the opportunity to lead with principles of inclusion, excellence, and sustainability. Again, this type of emergency preparedness may seem obvious coming out of a global pandemic as are the visible failures of those teams that do not prioritize table-top exercises and timely communication to all stakeholders.

While management of these various challenges will primarily be the responsibility of NASA BPS Division leadership, momentum and accountability will continue to benefit from a body independent of NASA, such as the current CBPSS administered by the Space Studies Board of the National Academies and the nascent BPAC that was chartered to provide recommendations on BPS scope and priorities, with broad discussion of that role within and outside NASA. In particular, the attention by those committees to a non-monetary return on investment (in terms of science published, technologies invented, workforce developed, missions completed, infrastructure built, industry created, etc.) would help to identify growth opportunities as well as sunset opportunities for KSQs, research campaign elements, and entire research campaigns.

Stimulating Opportunities for Cross-Disciplinary Research

It is hard to imagine a more opportune time to leverage technological advances across BPS in space, including the prospects for transformative discoveries in basic science, facilitating space travel and exploration, and providing benefits to life on Earth. This exciting BPS effort will necessarily require extensive cross-disciplinary research, which will require NASA and its partners to step outside of comfort zones/silos and increase partnerships. These partnerships include those with federal agencies that include a science mission, such as NIH and NSF, as well as with academia and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and for-profit industry.

Individual examples of such partnerships even within the federal government exist and have been fruitful (e.g., NIH-NASA for tissue chips), but these have been limited in scope and duration of co-investment. NASA could more broadly leverage advances in tissue and cell science, as well as genomics and other -omics methods, and biotechnology, across their relevant programs, through partnerships with NIH, NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Energy (DOE), and other partners. In the physical sciences, cross-disciplinary partnership opportunities include the realization of space-based, state-of-the-art precision measurements using optical atomic clocks, quantum sensors, and other emerging tools; here, NASA

could partner with other government agencies—for example, the Department of Defense (DoD), DOE, and NIST—to accelerate advances for the national interest. Research on climate, materials science, and manufacturing on Earth are also poised to make substantial advances by leveraging the opportunities provided by space-based research facilities.

Furthermore, there is an absolute need for data sharing and hubs for data processing for public and private data sets. NASA BPS Division has been a champion of Open Science and sharing of data generated by NASA-sponsored research; the Life Sciences Data Archive (LSDA), GeneLab, and Physical Sciences Informatics (PSI) databases are the principal data repositories, and PSI also now includes physical artifact archives. Similarly, it is essential for NASA to enact substantial outreach to the broader scientific community to integrate these data with other data sets (e.g., in biology sciences, data managed by NCBI, EBI, NMDC, DOE Kbase, UK Biobank, or AllofUs) (Arkin et al. 2018; Eloe-Fadrosh et al. 2021), and to provide funding outside of groups generating the data, to enable more broad and complete analyses of these unique data sets generated in space.

Parallel with a more integrative, open, multi-disciplinary approach to research and data sharing—including broader adoption of findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016)—there is a need to build a more robust multidisciplinary space research training ecosystem through data access and exchange with other research training environments and programs. One step in this regard would be to develop a BPS Training Grant program that is not siloed by one government agency, with internships at public or private parts of the space science research ecosystem that could combine small-scale, “start-to-finish” experiences of an individual trainee’s project to provide a more rounded, real-world translatable experience. In this way, BPS programs will develop well-rounded technologists and scientists that are less siloed, more adaptable, and creative.

Managing Choices Within the BPS Research Portfolio

Even in the absence of sudden or sharp changes that prompt use of the decision rules outlined above, the resources available for NASA in any given fiscal year may not be adequate to support the full array of multidisciplinary BPS KSQs, research campaigns, and other activities recommended by the present decadal survey. One approach, suggested by the most recent mid-decadal review, is that each research direction and associated technology being developed or considered for BPS activities (for example, as found in the evolving NASA Technology Taxonomy and NASA Strategic Technology Integration framework) be classified as falling into one of four categories: lead, collaborate, watch, or park. These four categories can help NASA determine the level of cooperative development with other entities (within and outside the federal government) and thus how best to optimize their research and technology development expenditures and efforts.

• Lead. NASA’s needs and timing for a BPS research area and enabling technology are predominant and essential for the core NASA BPS mission—for example, in subject areas addressing key questions or necessary for research campaigns outlined in this decadal survey. In this category, advancing the research and technology will require NASA investment without substantial shared investments by others. Efforts in this category will typically include (1) maintaining substantial intramural (within NASA and NASA-affiliated entities) expertise and infrastructure for the BPS research area; and (2) ongoing support of a robust community of extramural (outside NASA) BPS researchers.
• Collaborate. NASA determines that a BPS research area and/or BPS technology development activity is best pursued via an interdependent partnership with other organizations (government, industry, academia, or international partners) using shared investments. Such collaborations can include but are not limited to subject areas addressing key questions or necessary for research campaigns outlined in this decadal survey. An example is NASA and another government agency coordinating research, possibly also issuing joint calls for research proposals, and communicating project results to each other through means such as joint workshops. Another form is a public–private partnership in which NASA provides part of the funding with cost sharing by the industry partner. With academia, NASA could fund university investigators for

direct collaboration with NASA intramural researchers on pilot projects relevant to downstream scientific opportunities (e.g., informing possible new research directions and space missions relevant to the next decade of BPS). NASA can also provide its partners with access to unique infrastructure, research advances, and in-house expertise that significantly influence the direction of the collaboration. Collaboration allows NASA’s in-house technical experts to develop technology and perform research that they may not have otherwise been afforded the opportunity to conduct.

• Watch. NASA maintains high vigilance in the monitoring of emerging research and corresponding technology development efforts within government, industry, academia, and potential international partners. Activities in this category will most likely be research and technology development that is not unique to core NASA BPS research areas and campaigns but that may be relevant to downstream scientific opportunities. It is important that NASA stay actively engaged in the national and international scientific dialog to remain poised to react to developments that meet NASA needs in the near and longer term. One means of staying actively engaged in the national and international scientific dialog is attendance at and participation in scientific conferences by NASA researchers, as well as through NASA selectively funding external pilot projects in emerging scientific areas of potential but not yet clear BPS relevance.
• Park. NASA decides that pursuing research and corresponding technology development requires better definition of scientific goals, mission or operational requirements, and/or technical viability (even over a 10- to 20-year timescale) before proceeding with any significant effort. NASA maintains a minimal effort for research and technology development in this category until better definition is achieved.

CBPSS and BPAC could provide feedback to NASA on its position in this lead/collaborate/watch/park tradeoff space, either annually or at the mid-decadal timepoint.

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR BPS RESEARCH FROM EARTH TO LEO, THE MOON, AND BEYOND TO MARS

Overview of the Current, Known Infrastructure for Ground-Based Validation and Support for LEO, the Lunar Surface, and on the Way to Mars

NASA and commercial partners are currently flying or developing a wide variety of research platforms, as illustrated in Figure 7-2. These include the following platforms: (1) ground, (2) suborbital, (3) LEO, (4) beyond the Van Allen belts but not on the lunar surface, (5) on the lunar surface, and (6) on the way to the Martian orbit and surface. NASA BPS Division science is required to effectively develop and engage the vehicles in support of lunar and martian exploration, yet it is unclear whether BPS capability and utilization are being included in the designs and operations plans for all opportunities beyond LEO.

Finding 7-4: The BPS community has access to a much wider range of relevant space-related vehicles than ever before. However, BPS does not regularly offer access to those vehicles as a dedicated part of its grant portfolio. Instead, NASA BPS Division in SMD relies on the space science community to fund such efforts through separate applications to the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD).

Recommendation 7-3: Because key questions identified in this study benefit from access to multiple spaceflight-related platforms, the Biological and Physical Sciences Program should

• Coordinate funding opportunities with the Space Technology Mission Directorate such that access to the range of spaceflight and spaceflight-related platforms is efficiently employed to answer key science questions, especially those questions that inform technology development for space exploration; and
• Maintain a foundational approach to science, building through a strong, vibrant program of ground-based, suborbital, orbital, lunar, martian, and beyond missions.

Precedent for the coordination prompted in Recommendation 7-3 includes an example within the current decade between these two NASA mission directorates (BPS in SMD and STMD). By defining roles and knowledge transfer opportunities for cryogenic propellant tank microgravity data and simulations, the ZBOT experiment series supported by BPS¹ included ISS-based measurements on simulant fluids, from which models of fundamental fluid physics could be based, and potentially later transitioned to STMD’s planned technology demonstration flight missions.

Infrastructure for BPS research arguably includes the structural, computational, logistical, and mission control prerequisites for the successful support of the scientific study or research campaign.

• Structural infrastructure includes ground-based laboratories on Earth, on space stations/ships, or on extraterrestrial surfaces, including vehicles, communications hardware, computational hardware, roads, power, and so on. These are indicated in Figure 7-2.

___________________

¹ See NASA Science, “Space Biology Program,” https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/programs/space-biology.

• Computational infrastructure is the common access of a well-maintained environment for storage, analysis, and transport of data where needed at the appropriate timescales as missions and institutional responsibilities require. These are implicit in Figure 7-2.
• Logistical infrastructure is the expected support to manage general operations; maintenance; supply chains including food and waste management with associated upmass and downmass limit considerations, power management, water management, air management, fuel management, medical, and repair supplies; basic search, retrieval, and placement of materials and data from and into storage; maintaining server performance and accessibility; and ensuring minimal staffing of mission control and other infrastructure. These are typically not represented in renderings of destinations such as in Figure 7-2.
• Mission control includes the operations managers and decision support to launch and maintain communication with sites of structural infrastructure. This is generally implicit in renderings of space destinations such as in Figure 7-2.

Any mission addressing KSQs, a research campaign, or an integrated service will use a subset of these types of infrastructure and the platforms in Figure 7-2.

Recommendation 7-4: Because key scientific questions identified in this study support the effective utilization of, and benefit from access to, deep-space exploration platforms, NASA should ensure that scientific opportunities are maximized within the range of spaceflight and spaceflight-related platforms intended for lunar, cislunar and Mars transit solutions.

Ground-Based Research Facilities

General Biological, Chemical, and Physical Laboratory Facilities

There is a need for more ground-based facilities to examine subsets of spaceflight-associated stressors, either singly or in combination. Controlled facilitates permitting exposure of model organisms to elevated CO₂ levels, altered partial pressure, and radiation will be needed. In addition, increased availability of ground-based facilities that replicate orbiting and lunar facilities will be needed for preflight testing and for generation of ground control data. Controlled and automated facilities that can support small animal models, including C. elegans, Drosophila, and rodents, will also be needed to carry out comparative and multi-generational studies. Last, controlled plant and microbial growth chambers that can accommodate microgravity simulators (such as random positioning machines) and bioprocess controllers with the properly constrained form factors to also facilitate exposing organisms to increasing CO₂ levels, altered partial pressure, and radiation would be useful. Genetic manipulation (e.g., with CRISPR) to optimize organism resilience and productivity could be another strategy that is developed and investigated on the ground for deployment in space. However, another aspect that needs to be explored is simulating how such engineering could be done given the constraints of space laboratories. Ground-based facilities for biological, chemical, physical, and/or topically integrated experiments are necessary for a variety of reasons. Some allow investigators to interrogate individual components of the spaceflight environment in a more controlled and less expensive manner, while others provide preliminary evidence for future flight studies. Still others allow investigators to validate flight hardware. In any case, the need for such facilities will only increase as flight opportunities grow.

Radiation Facilities

While the radiation environment beyond the Van Allen belts is ever-changing and challenging to replicate on Earth, access to particle accelerators and similar facilities need be continued and expanded, including through partnerships with international institutions. Use of on-Earth-based beam lines for simulation of deep-space radiation and beam line harnesses for material and biological samples are essential for preliminary testing and validation. Advantages of such facilities include acute exposures to space-relevant high linear energy transfer radiations, both singly and in combination (e.g., carbon, iron, and high-energy protons). Limitations include limited access and the inability to perform prolonged low-dose/low-dose-rate studies.

Large Centrifuge Facilities

Although models for gravitational/inertial environments below the nominal 1 g are somewhat limited on Earth, large centrifuge facilities allow investigators to interrogate the impact of chronic exposure to increases in the gravitational environment (e.g., hypergravity). Furthermore, these facilities could, conceivably, be used to examine the impact of combinations of space-relevant stressors, such as low-dose radiation combined with hypergravity. However, while not as expensive as flight experiments, these facilities and the necessary support personnel are not inexpensive to maintain and support.

Habitat Analogs

While there are several isolation and confinement analogs, their utility for BPS research might be somewhat limited for animal-based research, except perhaps for method development and training purposes. In general, most of these facilities are suited for Human Research Program (HRP)-related research. However, some facilities, such as the Antarctic stations, can be useful for studying changes in circadian rhythm and extreme environments on plant growth.

High-Altitude Balloons

High-altitude balloons close to the magnetic poles allow chronic exposures (days to months) to radiation environments closer to what is seen in deep space. This includes galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-like radiation profiles.

Parabolic Flight Facilities

Parabolic flights can provide repeated, approximately 20-second exposures to microgravity. These flights generally go through 20–40 cycles of “micro” to 1.8 g levels over a 1–2 hour period. The acceleration level in the low-g period can also be adjusted—for example, providing “martian parabolas” or “lunar parabolas.” Higher acceleration in the low-g part provides longer duration, as the change in altitude and speed of the aircraft is the limiting factor. These flight profiles allow the opportunity to study biological and physical phenomena that respond very quickly to changes in the gravitational environment. Furthermore, hardware can be tested to see if it performs as expected in the microgravity environment prior to actual launch to LEO and beyond. (See Figure 7-3.)

Suborbital Flights

Suborbital spaceflight platforms now include researcher-tended and untended payload flights within human-rated vehicles, as well as payloads on sounding rockets. Similar to parabolic flight on airplanes, these opportunities provide exposure to microgravity (~10⁻⁴g). However, the length of exposure is for considerably longer, ranging from 3–15 minutes (Elgindi et al. 2021). Increasing access to crewed suborbital research flights is expected through the coming decade.

Drop Towers

Drop towers can provide very short but very high-quality microgravity (10⁻⁶g) exposures in the range of less than 10 s. These facilities are likely more suitable for specific physical sciences experiments requiring short observation timescales.

Ground Control and Mission Support Facilities

Many flight experiments, particularly those that involve sample return, require access to ground facilities for tissue processing and animal housing. For example, rodent studies require access to local Animal Care Facilities and laboratory space for tissue collection and preparation. These could be near the launch site (Kennedy Space Center or Vandenberg Space Force Base), near the landing site (local universities), on the capsule recovery vehicle itself, or in “mobile” laboratories. Last, because much of the hardware for biological studies is “open” to the cabin environment of the launch vehicle or space platform, ground controls are typically maintained in environment simulation chambers that closely match parameters of the vehicle, typically on a 1- to 2-day delay. These parameters include

day/night cycles, temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide and oxygen levels affecting both physical and biological systems. These complexities and present limitations reflect dependence on experimental formats that in turn depend on long-term, variable prestorage on Earth with uncertain launch times. Some experiments are flown only once, and those that anticipate sample return to address questions fully grapple with uncertain storage and return times.

Finding 7-5: With the increase in launch facilities and destination platforms, experiment cadence will accelerate in the coming decade.

Finding 7-6: The BPS community cannot continue to rely on experimental formats that depend on long-term, variable prestorage on Earth with uncertain launch times; single-pass “treatments” in space; and sample return with uncertain storage and return times.

Recommendation 7-5: The U.S. government, including NASA, should develop and maintain sufficient ground-based infrastructure to validate and support biological and physical sciences missions. Some of these facilities already exist and simply need to be upgraded, while others have yet to be conceived and built.

A Space-Oriented Data Science Ecosystem

This decadal survey concludes in the Year of Open Science, but the NASA BPS Division has dedicated resources to the managed yet open sharing of BPS research data well before this federal government proclamation.

There has been, and will continue to be, massive amounts of data generated from federally and commercially funded space-relevant research. For biology, for example, these data include -omics, cell population distributions, functional performance assessment data, and images. In BPS studies, multi-terabyte data sets comprising image and video data, with associated metadata and data analytics, are now common. Furthermore, there is a considerable amount of metadata associated with these studies that are unique to the spaceflight environment. Indeed, making data acquired in past and future space missions and ground-based analogs more accessible through data set curation and user-friendly interfaces can promote education and talent recruitment in space science. To ensure that these data are stored, organized, curated, and openly available to the public, data repositories need to be maintained by and for the broader research community.

Finding 7-7: The ability to manage and interpret the large amounts of data in BPS, both within and across data sets, remains an immature practice and science.

Currently, there are two such databases directly associated with NASA. Biological (non-astronaut) data are typically stored and managed by the GeneLab database at Ames Research Center. Physical sciences data are typically curated in the PSI database associated most closely with Glenn Research Center. In addition to storing and distributing data, members of these facilities also develop tools and analysis pipelines to analyze the data, as well as generate analysis manuscripts of their own.

Finding 7-8: Spaceflight experiments have unique sets of metadata associated with each experiment. These metadata are critically important to the usefulness of the data for additional analysis. Experiments flown aboard private, commercial, international, and potential U.S. defense-managed vehicles and platforms will generate similarly important data and may require data/IP agreements.

Recommendation 7-6: NASA should continue to expand the investment in open and shared computational infrastructure (CI) to support storage, analysis, and dissemination of its biological and physical data, while ensuring linkage to the original and archived samples.

• For biological sciences, GeneLab should be continued and efforts made to ensure findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable access from other critical international biological resource CIs.
• NASA should recognize the need for long-term investment to maintain, update, and improve such community-serving CI and physical repositories over time.

Sample Repositories

Space-related experiments are incredibly unique and valuable. Furthermore, there are often samples (biological or physical material artifacts) generated as part of such studies that are not directly related to the goals of the primary study or can be utilized for companion studies. For example, studies involving characterization of space effects on bone may not need tissues and organs involved in other physiological systems (such as the central nervous system or the gut microbiome), and rapidly solidified metals analyzed for structural parameters by the principal research team could also later be analyzed for functional properties by another research team. Ground-based studies, such as those involving radiation exposures at NASA Space Radiation Laboratory (at Brookhaven National Laboratory) or hypergravity exposures at the Ames Research Center, also generate a plethora of samples (biological tissues or engineered materials). Rather than discarding these resources, tissues are often collected, processed, and stored by NASA, and eventually distributed to interested investigators not associated with the primary science; physical samples can also be stored and redistributed.

Currently, NASA has several mechanisms for this. For biological samples, this includes the Biospecimen Sharing Program (BSP) and the NASA Biological Institutional Scientific Collection (NBISC) at Ames Research Center, as well as the Life Sciences Data Archive (LSDA) and Animal Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA). For physical sciences, samples are curated as part of PSI. As lunar, asteroid, and Mars missions advance, there will likely be opportunities to collect and store regolith for future ground-based study.

Finding 7-9: Spaceflight experiments can generate additional tissues and materials that are useful beyond the original scientific objectives of primary studies. Additional facilities, support personnel, and user protocols are needed for storage, handling, and availability of spaceflight-specific samples and tissues to maximize use of these materials for research.

Coordination with Commercial Destinations and International Facilities

With the changing space research landscape, policies and standards are needed for interacting with these new entities. Private-sector and international partners will have different modes of operation and requirements. These considerations range from using international laboratories and facilities (e.g., the European Space Agency [ESA] Environmental Control and Life Support System [ECLSS]) to launch vehicles (e.g., SpaceX and Northrop Grumman) and CLDs (e.g., Axiom and Blue Origin).

Because commercial companies are engaged in development of CLDs on which the exploration of national science needs will depend, Finding 7-3 and Recommendation 7-1 regarding the development of specifications are critical.

Coordination Between Other Government Agencies Within the United States

Many federally funded research organizations within the United States have goals that are synergistic to varying degrees with the mission of the BPS community. The most obvious of these are within NASA (including HRP, HEO, and STMD). Peripheral to these, but outside NASA, are the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) management of the ISS National Laboratory (ISSNL), the Translational Institute for Space Health (TRISH) and DoD’s Space Force. And, last, many basic and applied research units of DoD and DOE, and well as NIH and NSF, could benefit from or contribute capabilities to BPS-related research. For example, the impact of low-dose radiation exposure is a component of DOE, DoD, and NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases research portfolios. Sustainable technologies for waste stream recycling, in situ resource utilization (ISRU), biomanufacturing, and agriculture are also in the remit of NSF, DOE, DoD, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

A lack of coordination between NASA and other federal agencies (owing to granular and/or uncoordinated funding) is a persistent challenge that was also noted in the previous decadal survey. NASA needs to establish mechanisms of long-term interagency cooperation and resource planning to sustain a robust, long-term inter- and multi-disciplinary BPS research program where the individual agency objectives are subordinate to common unifying scientific goals in the national interest. Increasingly, this coordination reaches into the commercial sector, to suppliers of spaceflight hardware and facilities. A clear example is the development and space-based realization of state-of-the-art optical atomic clocks and clock networks. This challenging scientific (and supporting technological) goal will require coordinated effort both on the ground and in space, with no single agency having a complete capability to meet the overall goal. Thus, efforts at NASA need to be coordinated with complementary work at federal agencies such as NSF, NIST, and DoD. The body coordinating research between agencies could also be empowered to issue cross-agency calls for proposals, especially for long-term grants, on an annual or a biannual basis. Best practices developed by NSF and NIH could be used to ensure competent and transparent peer review of these proposals. In addition to proposal and grant coordination, challenges will exist in coordinating all phases of science, including policies and procedures for experiment compliance such as biosafety, handling of intellectual property, and other agreements that reach across platforms, providers, and agencies.

Recommendation 7-7: NASA should work with the other appropriate U.S. government agencies with a goal to establish an office or a mechanism for commercial sponsorship and collaboration with non-profit organizations, including academia and government research agencies. That office/mechanism should have the primary focus of

• Coordinating the work between these commercial sectors and government agencies;
• Providing guidance on or facilitating research compliance, data security, and material transfer agreements, including prototype agreements;

• Representing multiple space environments and destinations (e.g., not only the International Space Station in low Earth orbit); and
• Communicating these opportunities to the research community.

Beyond the U.S. government and industry, there is a historic reliance on international collaborations in the BPS space research community. Spanning decades concurrent with tumultuous world events, those collaborations have been maintained with space science and technology perceived as a collective effort and public good. However, this history cannot be taken to ensure future cooperation and friendly competition on the currently strained global stage. Thus, it is important that NASA continues to facilitate appropriate international engagements on behalf of the BPS community that requires access to space.

Recommendation 7-8: NASA should work with appropriate government agencies to establish clear guidelines for international collaborations within the biological and physical sciences—in particular, for support of non-U.S. students and scholars, to balance two goals:

• Sustain and advance the U.S. leadership in the relevant areas of research, possibly by attracting the best and brightest globally; and
• Support a robust global research community and information exchange, fostering partnerships with other space programs and U.S. access to other nations’ ground-based and space assets.

Communication of Technoeconomics of Space Science with the Research Community

This decadal survey grappled with the costs of BPS research that have been less understood by the research community during the ISS and shuttle launch eras. Namely, launch and related costs of BPS-sponsored research have not been included in the costs borne by the sponsored research team; these costs are borne by NASA and essentially cost-shared by the taxpayer as part of the larger launch event of which the research is only a part. At this stage of commercial LEO destination development and payload services, the division between the total cost of research and the researcher-aware costs are also unclear. When and how these shared costs are differently distributed is among the uncertainties of the coming BPS research decade, and lack of clarity on this point is a threat to a thriving future for BPS research in space.

Ensuring that analyses of cost evaluation—for projects addressing KSQs or for modules of research campaigns—are transparent and available will also help in comparison of different technological approaches to solve the same scientific or technological problem in space. Growing a community well-informed about the practical limitations or bottlenecks in the implementation of its proposed plans and technologies is increasingly important as the BPS community and broader U.S. space exploration community plan longer and more complicated missions.

PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING SPACE ENVIRONMENT ACCESS FOR BPS RESEARCH

Overall Decline in Funding and Community Needs to Be Remedied

One measure of commitment to space life and physical sciences is the overall NASA programmatic budget associated with microgravity science. The funding for the BPS program also suffered dramatic cuts after about 2005, when a decision was made to redirect research funding to Project Constellation. Figure 7-4 shows BPS task book and funding data, with the BPS budget decreasing by more than 30-fold from 1996 to 2010, followed by a modest rebound in support to the present. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, the funding had been compared to FY 2010. This increase demonstrates NASA’s efforts to restore space life and physical science research following ISS assembly completion. However, as shown in Figure 7-4, the funding environment has not been restored to its earlier levels of ~ $700 million in inflation-adjusted dollars.

A year-by-year look at the number of tasks and principal investigators supported by the BPS Division (Figure 7-4) reveals that between 2004 and 2009, both decreased by a factor of 7. This trend suggests that it is highly unlikely that increased efficiency can cover the loss of research output. The funding trends are consistent

for both biological and physical sciences, as Figure 7-4 shows. Figures 7-4 and 7-5 also show that, although the BPS Division budget was slowly increasing at least for some time since 2006, it has plateaued or decreased since 2020. The trends appear consistent for funding of BPS. Moreover, the grant funding available to external (non-NASA) U.S. researchers appears to represent only a modest ~25 percent of the overall BPS Division budget.

This historical perspective joins with the TRACE cost analyses of Chapter 6 and the political and social realities expressed in this chapter to arrive at a recommended funding level that is a significant increase from the current BPS level. (See Box 7-2.)

Finding 7-10: The BPS program is severely underfunded relative to current need, essentially preventing the development of a truly robust and resilient program that can meet the space exploration science needs of the nation.

Recommendation 7-9: To retire many of the key scientific questions by the end of the decade, NASA should establish support for the Biological and Physical Sciences Program to levels that reflect the current national need and to build the science community in size, diversity of technical expertise and lived experience, and capability to reach the science goals of the nation, toward levels that are an order of magnitude above the current funding and well before the end of the decade.

NASA considered the KSQs as the prioritized guidance for science in the coming decade. These prioritized questions certainly consume the current funding levels. The funding strategies can include larger team projects, individual grants and smaller exploratory de-risking, preliminary data, high-risk/high-reward pilot projects, and/or data mining studies. These prioritized KSQs also scale into much larger projects and many can be addressed partially in the research campaigns, but those campaigns can only be considered after a significant increase in funding.

• Current funding levels: All funding of BPS directly addresses the KSQs that are set out in this report as the priority for research in the next decade.
• Recommended funding levels: Research campaigns can be pursued only with funding provided well beyond the current funding levels, and research campaigns can be funded outside of and in addition to what is the current science funding strategy within the BPS Division. The KSQs scale into and are addressed by the research campaigns.

Recommendation 7-10: To maintain a viable scientific community, the numerical majority of supported principal investigators (i.e., fraction of research team leaders) should be extramural (i.e., not NASA employees) and funding levels should be commensurate with addressing the key scientific questions.

Recommendation 7-11: NASA should establish periodic reviews of selected research campaigns to ensure coordinated access to the space environment, publicly communicated progress on research milestones, and facilitation of collaborations and public–private partnerships as required to meet these ambitious goals.

Improving the Reliability of Funding to Improve the BPS Community

Schedule of Funding Opportunity Announcements Need Improvement

Federal agencies sponsoring scientific research have different approaches to proposal submissions. NIH has very specific and regular dates for proposal release, due dates, and awards (three times per year). For NSF, proposals can be submitted year-round. For NASA BPS, a fixed announcement schedule with annual calls would allow investigators to plan and reduce the uncertainty surrounding the current funding model. (See Figure 7-6.) The funding opportunity cycle could also be consistent and realistic to ensure a reasonable interval between opportunity announcement and proposal due date.

Reliability and Resilience to External Setback or Surprise Are Necessary

Multiple funding sources support BPS research. For transformational research, it is critically important not just to have funding, but to have sustained funding, with funding mechanisms appropriate for supporting research spanning multiple years and accommodating uncertainties that can lead to delays and setbacks. Delays can be owing to relatively benign reasons (e.g., flight scheduling problems or supply-chain issues), but it is important to develop contingency plans for major disruptions because of external events adversely affecting global research, such as pandemics, disruptive climate events, and war. Decision rules (see Box 7-1) and table-top exercises in contingency planning aid this management practice and can also inform communication plans with the BPS community, whose careers and educations can be disrupted inadvertently without such proactive communication.

As a result of declining overall funds, an unpredictable call for proposal schedule, and extreme sensitivity to delays and setbacks out of the control of investigators, funding for BPS-relevant science is subject to stressors for both lead investigators and more junior members of those potential research teams—particularly compared with other venues and sponsors of BPS research. The funding environment needs to be consistent and adaptable to

these stressors to maintain and grow the BPS workforce. Without this consistency, it becomes increasingly difficult to operate a laboratory in this field and, even more importantly, attract new graduate students and postdoctoral researchers to the BPS research community. Stressors well known to the current BPS community that affect continuity of research and researchers, beyond the above findings of historically decreased research expenditures and irregular funding opportunities, include the following:

• Mission/flight delays can dissolve research teams and dampen scientific impact. Flight delays can have drastic effects on the funding environment in individual laboratories, particularly when these delays occur over years rather than weeks to months. Students graduate, postdoctorates leave for faculty positions, and investigators retire. Technologies improve and scientific theories change. If these kinds of unintended delays occur, budgets need to be adaptable enough to respond. The BPS community is small, and institutional knowledge is lost when funding requires team members to move on.
• “Moonshot” projects induce sudden shifts in broader funding. Drastic changes in research priorities driven by political aspirations can leave entire research disciplines completely out of contention for funding for years. Every federal administration’s desire to have its “moonshot” project is understandable and encouraging, as it refreshes engagement with the nation’s leaders and the public. A rendezvous with an asteroid, a very fast return to the Moon, or a shift to a Mars mission are all wonderful ideas and often reflect current public interests in space science. But the moonshot ideas historically tend to cause drastic shifts in BPS research priorities, making long-term strategic planning exceptionally difficult, particularly for the investigative teams doing the work. There needs to be enough resources for both moonshot projects and long-term programs essential to sustaining a viable BPS community that can survive these short-term shifts in priorities.
• Flight experiments can be overly constrained. Despite the time, effort, and funding put into studies including flight experiments, most studies are “one and done” without opportunity to show repeatability or expand on previous results. This is a significant weakness in the current scientific approach and portfolio, as compared to Earth-based research, where replicate experiments, trials, and peer comparisons are considered necessary to separate spurious from robust findings. Anticipated increases in launch vehicles and flight opportunities can address this constraint, primarily by pursuing ground-based research with a minority of studies pursuing space-based opportunities at any given time to ensure de-risking with ground-based preparation as well as bandwidth for repeated and incrementally expanding flight experiments.
• Ground-based BPS activities can mitigate stressors. Ground-based research both complements and enables space-based investigations. For example, detailed studies often need to be performed on the ground to provide calibrations or comparisons to space-based research. Ground-based research could also frequently precede space-based experiments—for example, to establish proof of concept of new scientific ideas or approaches, and to develop and then mature new technologies to the point where they can be considered for later space-based implementation. Ground-based research is also essential to maintaining the healthy cohort of research leaders and trainees needed to generate and execute successful and relevant space missions. These facilities are not as dependent on flight scheduling or partitioning of crew time and attention. These facilities also provide opportunities for synergistic and dual-use research with other agencies wherein shared infrastructure accelerates both sides and shared research might help space and Earth.

SUSTAINING PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORT FOR BPS RESEARCH AND ITS SOCIETAL BENEFITS

Relative Public Awareness and Investment in BPS Compared with Other NASA and U.S. Government–Funded Research in Space

NASA’s BPS program has two key missions. The first is to use the space environment to advance outstanding fundamental science, which will allow us to both survive and thrive in space. The second is to leverage the space environment to perform experiments that cannot be done on Earth to advance fundamental discoveries in

science, technology, and space exploration. These dual missions include the general goal of enhancing education, innovation, and economic vitality, and to execute on this the BPS Division currently administers three essential programs: NASA’s Space Biology Program,² Physical Science Program,³ and Commercially Enabled Rapid Space Science project (CERISS).⁴ This raises the question of the level of relative public awareness and investment in BPS and these programs compared with other NASA (e.g., HRP, STMD, HERO, and HEOMD) and U.S. government–funded (e.g., CASIS, TRISH, and DoD/Space Force) organizations that are engaged in space related activities.

Initiatives such as the GeneLab Data System and LSDA, which promote open science, have been particularly successful in engaging the public and raising awareness of the BPS Division’s mission. The Space Biology Program has also focused on understanding how to mitigate adverse changes caused by the space environment by developing novel treatment approaches to promote healing and regeneration (NASA 2023b; White House 2023).⁵

The BPS Division’s Physical Science Program has promoted open science via the PSI data repository for experiments performed on the ISS, space shuttle flights, and free-flyers. The PSI data repository, which is accessible and open to the public, provides the opportunity for researchers to further the BPS Physical Science Program mission through informatics.

CERISS is aimed at working with the commercial space industry to dramatically increase the efficacy and pace of research supported by the BPS Division’s Research Programs. The mandate of this project is rapidly developing and expanding, including long-term goals such as the development of enhanced capabilities for research on the ISS as well as in commercial LEO and lunar surface projects. Updates regarding ongoing initiatives planned by the commercial space industry (e.g., SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic) have garnered recent media attention in the popular press.

Finding 7-11: Articles in newspapers and magazines—including well-known publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Time Magazine—often focus on the contribution of the commercial space industry to fascinating NASA-based research, rather than the research process and findings.

The BPS Division has launched numerous exciting initiatives resulting in essential research progress over the past decade. It has also made a strong commitment to open science, which is key to improving public awareness. In comparison to the BPS Division, the research discoveries of other NASA research institutions, such as NASA’s planetary science and astrophysics programs, are more readily and regularly communicated by the popular press to the public. Furthermore, the expanding commercial space industry also is more readily and regularly reported by the popular press. Indeed, there is relatively limited news coverage of BPS Division–funded research by the press beyond that distributed by NASA’s own news service.⁶ The increasing level of press focus on commercial space flight is expected given recent growth and progress in this area but can pose a threat to public awareness and investment in BPS Division–sponsored research. Greater public awareness of BPS accomplishments is a shared responsibility of NASA and the research community, which can leverage the positive coverage of NASA by providing BPS-specific content and clear “so what?” descriptions of the societal implications. Social media channels such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are underutilized as vehicles for sharing outcomes using a focused branding strategy that elevates BPS community achievements.

National Leaders and Inspirers/Influencers Who Participated in or Use Outcomes of BPS Research

Invested and knowledgeable individuals who have participated in and/or use outcomes of BPS research in areas of space biology and physical science research can engage the public in the excitement and significance of BPS

___________________

² See NASA Science, “Space Biology Program,” https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/programs/space-biology.

³ See NASA Science, “Physical Sciences Program,” https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/programs/physical-sciences.

⁴ See NASA Science, “Commercially Enabled Rapid Space Science Project (CERISS),” https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/commercial.

⁵ See NASA, “2023: Year of Open Science,” https://nasa.github.io/Transform-to-Open-Science/year-of-open-science.

⁶ NASA science news can be found at https://science.nasa.gov/science-news.

research and discoveries. While space biology research can potentially be more controversial, owing to bioethical considerations (discussed later in this chapter), there are numerous opportunities to engage the public. Individuals who can serve in advocacy roles are essential for sustaining and growing programs and missions such as those of BPS because they serve as conduits between the scientific community and the public at large.

Finding 7-12: Well-known public champions for BPS-focused research are relatively scarce. Internet searches for “space biophysicist,” “space biologist,” or “space physicist” retrieve very few names of persons who are nationally recognized for their NASA BPS research and who currently serve as prominent advocates for the program.

To sustain public awareness and support for BPS research and its societal benefits, it will be vital to tap into the diversity of individuals who directly participate in the research and mission of BPS, as well as other committed individuals who can serve as champions and influencers to inspire the next generation. To optimally engage the public, champions could include diverse individuals from all career pathways and stages of training such as principal investigators, postdoctoral fellows, PhD and master’s graduate students, and undergraduate students who participate in or use outcomes of BPS research.⁷ These individuals as well as those leading the research teams can effectively contribute as influencers to advance public awareness of the mission of BPS.

Scientific Meetings and Government Outreach

NASA has historically supported research meetings so that the BPS community can meet to discuss its research and explore new ideas. This is also a common activity for new students to quickly learn about different aspects of the field or to identify future postdoctoral positions. These meetings, such as American Society for Gravitational and Space Research and the NASA Space Radiation Workshop, are critical components of the BPS community.

Finding 7-13: BPS-relevant scientific meetings do not typically engage members of the government in the exchange of information and ideas. This participation gap highlights a missed opportunity for interaction between scientists at all career pathways and government leaders that fosters dissemination of findings and permits real-time response to questions and insights.

Suggested Modes of Local, National, and Global Building of Awareness and Support, Beyond the BPS Research Community

The BPS Division has a strong track record of public outreach through citizen science activities and contributions to building capacity for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education that can garner favorable public support at local, national, and global levels. The BPS Division currently participates in several educationally oriented programs that are designed to broaden participation and knowledge of space sciences. For example, awareness and support is furthered through the Science Activation (SciAct) program, a competitively selected network of teams from across the United States who focus on bringing NASA science to learners of all ages, backgrounds, and communities.⁸ The BPS Division participated in the first edition of NASA’s new space biology bootcamp in which educators from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) were taught the basics of space biology, experimental design, and the technology used for collecting data. Educators also were given instruction and tools for the analysis of real data from GeneLab (Tabor 2022a). These types of activities and practices are essential for building public awareness and support.

NASA is transitioning to an operational model where the agency will rely more on industry and international collaborators rather than directing spaceflight programs. In essence, NASA will become a “customer” and BPS

___________________

⁷ See NASA Taskbook, “The NASA Task Book,” https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/tbp/welcome.cfm.

⁸ See NASA Science, “Science Activation (SciAct) Program,” https://science.nasa.gov/learners.

researchers will need to adapt to this new scenario by strengthening ties with global partners and communities (NASA 2022a). The Biological and Physical Sciences Open Data Initiative is a major strength of the BPS research portfolio around which to grow global support.⁹ BPS crop research in space is a major attractant of global attention and support and is highly valued by the United Nations, in part because of its relevance for agriculture in resource-limited environments (Agronet 2022; Ripples Nigeria 2019; Times of India 2021; United Nations 2023).

Finding 7-14: BPS research elicits national and global awareness through participation in NASA’s educational outreach activities and its citizen science projects, in which interested members of the public around the world can collaborate with BPS researchers. While the BPS national engagement portfolio already comprises student learning opportunities, internships, and fellowships, these could be better communicated to the public. BPS programs are valued globally and have benefited from international collaborations. BPS is well positioned to adapt to NASA’s new strategic approach by leveraging the strengths of commercial and international partners to maximize outcomes of funded research.

NASA BPS can build on this public outreach foundation to cultivate global awareness and support for research activities. The Biological and Physical Sciences Open Data Initiative can be advertised widely and tapped for programmatic impact. GeneLab’s reach can be further expanded by engaging more of the public through initiatives such as citizen science, crowdsourcing, observatory science, and real-time science. The Spaceflight Technology, Applications, and Research (STAR) program for principal investigators, senior research scientists, and postdoctoral scholars has a global reach and can serve as a model for engaging international scientists in BPS research.¹⁰ This can also encourage participation of international scholars and citizens in BPS research needs in an appropriate, mutually beneficial, and cooperative manner. Last, this public outreach over the first 5 years can build momentum and partnerships for future BPS research campaigns at the mid-decadal timepoint. Like the decision rules (see Box 7-1) that anticipate surprise and manage outcomes in the research program itself, the next 5 years of this decadal time horizon must build momentum in public awareness and appreciation of practical impact provided by BPS research, and build sensitivity to external shocks that affect the BPS research community.

Recommendation 7-12: NASA should identify mechanisms to compete new or additional research campaigns within 5 years, in light of anticipated changes to access to low Earth orbit and the inevitable but unknown changes in research, technology, funding, and space mission directives that will ensue after this report is issued.

Stability of the Scientific Community, Including Stability of Disciplines or Subdisciplines

According to the NSF 2022 Science and Engineering Indicators, the U.S. share of global research and development (R&D) remained high at 27 percent in 2019 (NSF 2022c). The United States is a global leader in the publication of high-impact articles, as measured by citations (NSF 2022b, Figure 22). Between 2000 and 2018, U.S. authors contributed almost double the number of highly cited articles when compared with their overall publication output. U.S. publications with international authors numbered 40 percent in 2020, a twofold change from 2000 and underscoring the collaborative spirit of U.S. S&E (NSF 2022b). Patents are indicators of innovation, and the United States is strong in this area. In 2020, U.S. inventors were granted 164,000 patents by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a 53 percent increase from 2010 (NSF 2022b, Figure 25). The United States accounts for 23 percent of the world’s scientific R&D services industry, whose purpose is to increase basic knowledge and to apply research findings to develop products in engineering, physics, and life sciences. However, between 2010 to 2020, the U.S. share of international patents declined from 15 percent to 10 percent, while China’s share of international patents increased to 49 percent, a threefold gain from their share in 2010 (NSF 2022b, Figure 25). Moreover, the U.S. proportion of R&D growth has been declining over the past 2 decades. (See Figure 7-7A.)

___________________

⁹ See NASA Science, “Data: Biological and Physical Sciences Open Data,” https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/data.

¹⁰ See NASA Science, “NASA’s STAR Program,” https://science.nasa.gov/biological-physical/programs/star.

As of this report, the United States ranks only fourth among nations in R&D intensity, expressed as percentage of R&D investment relative to gross domestic product (Zimmermann 2023). According to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data reported by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), the annual growth in U.S. R&D expenditures since 2000 has been eclipsed significantly by several nations, and that rate of increase is notable in Korea, Israel, and China. (See Figure 7-7B.)

STEM Degrees and the BPS Workforce

The BPS research workforce will continue to require advanced education in STEM, and must compete with other inspiring fields and careers for a limited pool of U.S. STEM talent. In 2021, more than 90 percent of 25- to 64-year-olds in the United States had completed a high school degree, making the United States among the top 10 countries in educational attainment.¹¹ Overall, it is encouraging that there has been strong growth in the STEM workforce in the United States in the past decade. Notably, following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts continued growth in the next decade in disciplinary sectors such as biochemistry/biophysics (15 percent), physics/astronomy (8 percent), and data science (36 percent) that will contribute new talent to the BPS enterprise.¹² However, it is notable that in terms of the research workforce, the United States has the third largest workforce globally, but as of 2023 ranks only 18th in researchers as a share of the total workforce compared with other countries.

This STEM pool will be increasingly diverse in ethnic/racial demographic composition in the coming decade. While this is a statement of fact based on recent census data (e.g., showing increasing representation of Hispanic White and Black residents in the under age 15 population in the United States [Brookings 2019]; with Hispanics accounting for more than a quarter of this demographic and projected to comprise 35 percent of U.S. children by 2050 [Passel and Cohn 2008]), BPS can use this awareness to prepare intentionally to broaden its community of perspectives. Inclusive teams of diverse lived experiences are documented to also be creative, problem-solving teams in many work contexts. The associate’s (AA) degree conferred by community colleges is an increasingly sought after and affordable educational option for those who seek entry to STEM professions and especially for those who come from under-resourced and historically underrepresented groups in STEM (NSF 2022d). Student achievement of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in the natural sciences and mathematics disciplines central to the BPS mission has remained steady over the past decade for doctoral degrees, and increased for bachelor’s and master’s degrees (Department of Education 2022).

Although these trends in STEM-seeking students in the United States across wide socioeconomic and other population descriptor backgrounds are promising, they obscure underlying disparities in the achievement of STEM degrees and entry to STEM professions by women and historically marginalized populations (Department of Education 2022). For example, a snapshot analysis of persons earning STEM degrees and certificates in 2020–2021 that considers race and ethnicity shows that men outnumbered women across all racial and ethnic groups, with Black women achieving closest parity and White women least as compared with their male peers. (See Table 7-2; nonbinary gender was not a reported category in that statistical digest.) Moreover, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders were underrepresented in bachelor’s degree achievement in comparison to their proportion of the population (13.6 percent, 18.9 percent, 1.3 percent, 0.3 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2023).

For decades, the United States has led the world in international education and served as a magnet for the more than 900,000 international students seeking U.S. degrees (Department of State 2023). In 2019, about 36 percent of master’s of science and engineering degrees and 33 percent of science and engineering doctorates were earned by students on temporary visas (NSF 2022d). However, the appeal of a U.S. degree for international students lessened since 2019, owing not only to the pandemic transient but also to the rising cost of a U.S. degree in the context of greater study options in other countries.¹³

Short-term prospects for a well-educated BPS workforce are promising. Long term, the projections for a BPS-ready STEM workforce are more uncertain, owing to persistent gaps in STEM degree achievement by historically underrepresented groups. Graduate programs have relied on a strong international presence that is expected to decline, leaving graduate programs with fewer students to sustain research and teaching in S&E academic departments.

___________________

¹¹ See U.S. Census Bureau release of educational attainment data (2022), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/educational-attainment.html, and World Population Review of most education countries (2023), https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-educated-countries.

¹² See Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Occupational Outlook Handbook,” https://www.bls.gov/ooh.

¹³ See K. Fisher and S. Aslanian, “Fading Beacon,” https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2021/08/03/fading-beacon-why-america-is-losing-international-students.

TABLE 7-2 Percentage Distribution of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Degrees (All) Certificates Conferred by Postsecondary Institutions, by Race/Ethnicity and Sex of Student: Academic Year 2020–2021

SOURCE: Based on data from Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education Statistics, 2022, “Table 318.45. Number and Percentage Distribution of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Degrees/Certificates Conferred by Postsecondary Institutions, by Race/Ethnicity, Level of Degree/Certificate, and Sex of Student: Academic Years 2011–2012 Through 2020–2021,” https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_318.45.asp.

BUILDING AND SUSTAINING A DIVERSE AND ETHICAL U.S. SCIENCE COMMUNITY IN GLOBAL CONTEXT

National Competitiveness and Advancement of Human Knowledge for Society, as Motivators of Diverse and Ethical U.S. BPS Community

Sustaining national S&E leadership and advancement of human knowledge for a thriving and economically robust society serve as key motivators for the growth of a diverse and ethical U.S. BPS community. As the BPS mission continues to expand, many rapidly developing considerations pose ethical challenges that need to be addressed. While space exploration is motivated by scientific discovery, it also is motivated by resource extraction and allocation, geopolitical and strategic considerations, and the need to ensure the public trust. These issues are the focus of space ethics—a field that studies the ethical, legal, and societal implications of space exploration and addresses questions such as: “Even if we can do certain things in space, should we?”

International in scope, space ethics encompasses perspectives from diverse disciplines such as philosophy, astronomy, environmental studies, history, law, psychology, religious studies, and sociology. Space ethics is a field of study that deals with the moral and ethical issues that arise in the exploration and utilization of outer-space exploration with the goal of ensuring that activities are conducted responsibly and in a sustainable manner and guided by ethical principles and values. Some of the key issues that are addressed in space ethics include

• Resource utilization: How to use and distribute the resources that are found through space exploration fairly and ethically.
• Environmental protection: Considerations of the potential impact of human space exploration on the environment in space and on other planets and the potential impact of bringing extraterrestrial materials back to Earth.

___________________

¹⁴ Quote from Ellen Ochoa, former NASA astronaut and former director of Johnson Space Center; also first Hispanic woman to go to space, on Space Shuttle Discovery, National Science Foundation, https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2021/nsbct042821.pdf.

• International cooperation: How to fairly and ethically share the benefits and responsibilities of cooperative endeavors among many countries.
• Property rights: Who has the right to claim ownership of resources, and what criteria would be used to determine these claims.
• Human rights: What rights and protections would be afforded as humans begin to travel, live, and work in space and on other planets.
• Benefits to humanity: How to ensure that communities from all over the world can use and benefit from space exploration research, technology, and applications.

Space exploration in the next decade will be undertaken in a landscape of conflicting national and corporate interests. More than 70 space agencies exist around the world, dominated by nations that are technologically advanced or with a well-financed military presence, and more are predicted to join this group. Moreover, private space entrepreneurship is expected to grow, and companies such as SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing space tourism and venturing into R&D. The legal aspects of space exploration are fueling the emergence of the field of space law, which comprises international treaties and principles governing outer space such as those developed under the aegis of the United Nations and overseen by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA). While there are existing institutions that consider ethical, legal, and social implications of space exploration, their abilities to enforce compliance are currently limited. Ethical conduct will depend on international cooperation and cultivating dialog, discussion, and articulation of shared values and mutual respect.

In light of recent economic and social upheaval and growing economic difficulties, public support for space exploration is mixed (Foust 2019; Konicki and Pethokoukis 2022; Sabin 2021). It is critical that BPS (and NASA) practices and policies be in place that increase the public trust and ensure that space exploration proceeds in a transparent manner where the benefits are prominently shared. To this end, the public needs to be engaged well in advance on potentially controversial matters such as the use of animals in space research, the environmental consequences of LEO satellites and associated space debris, and the alteration of habitats on other planets via mining and natural resource extraction.

An ethical BPS workforce is essential to fulfill the BPS mission in support of national competitiveness and advancement of human knowledge for society. However, BPS Division guidelines for responsible conduct in research were not easily accessible on the BPS/NASA website.¹⁵

Workforce or Collaboration Weaknesses at Present or Anticipated

A robust BPS STEM workforce is vital to develop innovative breakthroughs and engage in space-related activities that will grow the economy and uphold national leadership during the next decade. Global circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and economic instability pose challenges to the growth and strength of the STEM workforce. The U.S. STEM enterprise is global and benefits from the contributions of foreign-born workers who comprised almost 20 percent of all STEM workers in the United States.

Increased unemployment and the chance of a global recession have caused economic disruptions and raise uncertainty about prospects for STEM enrollment in higher education and the development of a thriving STEM business sector (Langin 2022; OECD 2021). During the COVID-19 pandemic years between 2019 and 2021, the unemployment rates for STEM and non-STEM occupations increased for most demographic groups. Although unemployment for the STEM workforce remained lower than for non-STEM workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, the economic impact was felt more keenly among historically underrepresented groups. Black and Hispanic STEM workers experienced the highest rate of pandemic unemployment, while White and Asian STEM workers experienced the lowest unemployment rates.¹⁶

___________________

¹⁵ This paragraph was changed after release of the report to the sponsor to remove a description of guidelines for which no source could be found.

¹⁶ National Science Foundation, “STEM Unemployment,” https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/stem-unemployment.

Disparities in Participation and Earnings in the STEM Workforce

In 2021, as the global population emerged from the pandemic, nearly a quarter (24 percent) of the U.S. workforce was employed in STEM occupations.¹⁷ Between 2011 and 2021, the number of women and historically underrepresented minorities increased within the STEM workforce but lagged in comparison to their representation. Even though women are half (51 percent) of the total U.S. population, they comprise only a third (35 percent) of persons employed in STEM. (See Figure 7-8.) Combined, historically underrepresented minorities held about 25 percent of STEM jobs but were disproportionately a higher share of the skilled technical workforce than of STEM workers with at least a bachelor’s degree.¹⁸ Persons with disabilities comprise 26 percent of U.S. adults (CDC 2023) but only 3 percent of the 2021 STEM workforce (Figure 7-8). The STEM workforce also is characterized by pronounced demographic disparities. In 2020, women in the STEM workforce had lower median earnings than men in S&E, S&E-related, and middle-skill occupations, and historically underrepresented minorities had lower median earnings as compared with White or Asian STEM workers.¹⁹ Across all groups, persons with a bachelors’ degree or higher earned significantly higher wages. (See Figure 7-9.)

___________________

¹⁷ National Science Foundation, “The STEM Workforce,” https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/the-stem-workforce.

¹⁸ National Science Foundation, “STEM Occupation,” Figure 3-3, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/stem-occupations#educational-attainment-of-the-stem-workforce.

¹⁹ National Science Foundation, “STEM Median Wage and Salary Earnings,” Figure 4-1, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/report/stem-median-wage-and-salary-earnings.

The U.S. STEM workforce is characterized by decades of persistent disparities in STEM degree achievement among demographic groups.²⁰ In 2019, historically underrepresented groups received a disproportionally lower share of all degrees with one exception: Hispanics achieved a greater share of AA degrees in comparison to their representation in the general population. (See Figure 7-10.)

Although women earn half or more of overall higher education degrees at each degree level, their degree achievement in S&E fields is lower in comparison with male peers, with very large disparities between men and women in fields such as engineering, computer science, math, and physical science (NSF 2022a). S&E degree achievement is influenced by the complex intersectionality of discipline, race/ethnicity, and gender. (See Table 7-2.) For example, across disciplines, women earn a lesser share of STEM bachelor’s degrees in fields such as mathematics and computer sciences, while within a discipline such as physical sciences, women of

___________________

²⁰ See HED-16, https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20223/demographic-attributes-of-s-e-degree-recipients.

certain race/ethnic backgrounds may earn a greater or lesser share of degrees than male peers or members of other racial/ethnic groups.

Growing the Next Generation of Space Science Researchers

A strong research training program for students at all levels (for flight- and ground-based research) would increase research productivity and also provide a trained workforce for the future. In the mid-1990s, the plant space biology program provided such training grants—the NASA Specialized Centers of Research and Training (Spooner and Guikema 1992). These large grants provided inter-, multi-disciplinary approaches to fundamental questions of interest to BPS. They provided funding for multiple principal investigators (6 to 12) and supported multiple postdoctoral researchers, graduate students, and undergraduates. The awards also required significant outreach to K–12 teachers and students and the general public. NIH provides an example of a tiered training grant program that strengthens and supports the next generation of biomedical researchers. (See Table 7-3.) Such approaches for multi-year, mentored support of graduate students and postdoctorates is considered best practice for momentum, quality, and mentorship of junior researchers; other models such as NSF Research Training Groups were considered (NRC 2009) and found beneficial to education goals but also less aligned to the needs of growing an inclusive research community sustainably.

The need for professionals with STEM expertise will remain high during the next decade, and the advancement of a well-educated space science workforce in support of the BPS mission presents challenges. Space exploration requires well-trained scientists, engineers, and technicians. Demand may outpace the ability of the current STEM workforce to fill positions, and those already employed in STEM and non-STEM fields may need to reskill or specialize to remain competitive. It is essential to eliminate the demographic disparities in STEM wages and education that

presently characterize the U.S. STEM workforce. Moreover, the long-term impact of the current political landscape on the nation’s ability to retain and recruit foreign-born workers who are vital contributors to science and engineering innovation is uncertain, and their continued participation needs to be ensured. BPS needs individuals with the necessary skills and expertise to fill positions and undertake research in BPS-relevant space science fields. For this reason, it is essential to recruit, train, and retain diverse talent within all career pathways and degree levels. NASA is a participating agency in the OSTP’s Interagency Roadmap to Support Space-Related STEM Education and Workforce (NSTC 2022), which provides guidance for strengthening space-related STEM education and developing a workforce strategy in support of space R&D. This momentum is supported by the National Academies’ consensus study report published in 2023, Foundations of a Healthy and Vital Research Community for NASA Science.

Recommendation 7-13: NASA should ensure diversity, equity, inclusivity, and accessibility in the pursuit of the nation’s space exploration science priorities, including instituting a requirement of documented progress in diversity among NASA-sponsored research teams seeking multi-year funding or multiple sponsorship requests over the coming decade. This inclusivity should be intentionally broad in concept, with respect to visible and less visible characteristics of historically underrepresented groups in biological and physical sciences research and leadership.

Recommendation 7-14: Project grants should be funded at levels and duration consistent with the project aims with full support for trainees (postdoctorates, graduate students, and undergraduates), including travel for trainees and principal investigators to support the mission and participate in scientific meetings. Full funding representing the total costs of research (direct and indirect) is imperative to be inclusive of participation by all trainees.

Diversity in Many Forms, Including Participation in BPS Research and in Space Missions That Carry Out BPS Experiments or Space Exploration

Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility at NASA

Diversity of representation and of thinking is an undisputed foundation for innovation and a recognizable feature of a resilient, equitable, inclusive, and accessible STEM environment (Campbell et al. 2013; Freeman and Huang 2014a; NASEM 2023). Indeed, the National Academies have issued many reports advocating for more diverse, equitable, and inclusive STEM that are maintained as a collection of resources.²¹ NASA maintains an

___________________

²¹ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Collection of Reports,” https://nap.nationalacademies.org/collection/97/diversity-equity-and-inclusion.

Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity that oversees diversity and civil rights policies and services and supports several special emphasis programs.

In 2022, NASA leadership participated in a national taskforce that issued a roadmap with goals for interagency-wide action to build STEM education and the STEM workforce (NSTC 2022). The roadmap specified as the third goal to: “[e]mploy a diverse workforce to bring the benefits of space to more communities.” This same year, NASA issued policies and practices as part of a strategic plan that stipulates NASA’s aspirations for mission directorates to embed diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA, used interchangably within and beyond NASA as IDEA; see Box 7-3) into all interactions with their workforce and contractors (NASA 2022d,e). (See Figure 7-10.) The NASA strategic plan specifically defines DEIA (see Table 7-4) and the term “underserved communities” that is also referred to in the economic development sphere as socially or economically disadvantaged individuals

TABLE 7-4 NASA Definitions for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility for a Shared Understanding of These Terms

^a The term “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life. Underserved communities include the following: people with disabilities; LGBTQIA+ individuals; individuals with limited English proficiency; older adults; people of color; individuals in rural communities; first-generation professionals, college students, and immigrants; formerly incarcerated individuals; persons adversely impacted by persistent poverty, discrimination, or inequality; women; individuals facing religious discrimination; veterans and military spouses; and parents, caregivers, and individuals facing pregnancy discrimination. They have been historically denied full opportunity including Blacks and African Americans; Hispanics and Latinos; Indigenous, Native American, and Native Alaskan persons; Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders; other persons of color; members of religious groups; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and people otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.

SOURCE: NASA, 2021, Fiscal Years 2022–2026, NASA Strategic Plan for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Accessibility, Washington, DC: Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_deia_strategic_plan-fy22-fy26-final_tagged.pdf.

(SEDI); this plan focuses on four goals that are consistent with this decadal survey’s recommendations regarding (1) workforce diversity; (2) workforce equity and inclusion (employee experience); (3) accessibility and accommodation; and (4) DEIA integration into the NASA mission.

Ensuring Achievement of a Goal Requires Accountability Standards and Progress Measurements

To this end, NASA provides a yearly open access report that summarizes agency-wide progress toward workforce diversity using the federal STEM workforce and Relevant Civilian Labor Force (RCLF) benchmarks as a comparison group (NASA 2021). The report, however, does not provide disaggregate data for SMD nor for BPS.

Although the NASA 2021 report provided evidence that NASA met or exceeded the RCLF averages for most STEM occupations, the report also flagged a need to ensure that underrepresented and underserved communities have the opportunity and are encouraged to pursue careers in STEM, as well as experience equity and inclusion in the NASA and STEM workforce. The report noted that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) and Hispanics account for a lower percentage of the Senior Executive Service (SES) compared to their overall representation in the NASA workforce, and that Blacks, Hispanics, and women make up a smaller proportion of both ST (scientific or professional) and SL (senior level) positions than their overall representation in the workforce.

Diversity Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility at SMD/BPS

SMD, which oversees the BPS Division, maintains a diversity unit that produced SMD’s own IDEA-focused strategic plan in February 2022 and produced a report that is openly accessible.²² SMD proposes to promote DEIA through many potentially transformational activities and practices such as the initiation of an SMD Bridge program to partner with MSIs; a PI Launchpad that will support first-time proposers; adoption of a dual anonymous peer review; codes of conduct for mission teams; and collection, evaluation, and publication of demographics of Research Opportunities in Earth and Science Program (ROSES) proposers and awardees.²³ SMD also is promoting GEM Fellowships for underrepresented minorities in STEM graduate programs, and maintains a page that disseminates space research opportunities for the high school students, graduates, and postdoctorates.²⁴ However, the DEIA strategic plan does not state whether diversity and representation in SMD research will be tracked, nor does the Science by the Numbers portal provide disaggregated information specific for BPS research. (See Figure 7-11.)

Finding 7-15: The BPS program and the community it supports are increasingly diverse and inclusive, yet work still needs to be done to ensure momentum and broader participation at all levels of the research enterprise.

Finding 7-16: Supporting workforce development is necessary to sustain a strong research community and to maintain a vigorous research program. Historical disparities in the achievement of STEM degrees propagate throughout the STEM enterprise and lead to persistent representation gaps in research and organizational leadership by women, historically marginalized groups, and persons with disabilities. The gaps are likely to be greater than currently perceived because data have not been consistently collected for many groups; there are little or no data for groups such as those who self-identify as LGBQT+, nor do data consistently capture how intersectionality affects participation and outcomes. Military veterans and returning adult learners are untapped higher education constituencies who often are overlooked and who would bring valuable life and work experiences to space exploration missions.

The 2022 National Academies report Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Leadership of Competed Space Missions (NASEM 2022) provides a deep analysis and offers specific recommendation

___________________

²² NASA, “NASA Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility at SMD,” https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/idea, and NASA Science Mission Directorate Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility, https://science.nasa.gov/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/SMD_IDEA_Annual%20Report_2022.pdf.

²³ NASA, “NASA Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility at SMD,” https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/idea.

²⁴ See NASA Science Continuing Opportunities, https://science.nasa.gov/learners/learner-opportunities.

to SMD on how to make leadership of space missions more accessible, inclusive, and equitable. Although focused on the Heliophysics, Astrophysics, Planetary Science, and Earth Science divisions, the report recognized that most of the recommendations could be applied throughout the agency to lead to a more diverse workforce in all NASA-funded research and training programs.

Finding 7-17: BPS is a DEIA leader within NASA owing to its record of embedding DEIA into its policies and programs. Noteworthy examples include an established commitment to open science, a broad portfolio of outreach and training activities such as GeneLab and the STAR Program, and development of its own DEIA strategic plan. As NASA’s flagship program in basic sciences with an interdisciplinary focus, BPS is well-positioned to recruit from a wide range of individuals with broad interests in STEM who can be recruited to space exploration enterprises in academic and commercial sectors. Outcomes of such commitment can be substantiated by longitudinal data collection, regular periodic and public sharing of those data, and leadership-supported celebration of more inclusive research workplaces and communities.

OUTLOOK

The coming decade of biological and physical science research in space environments is one in which the United States has the opportunity to thrive, lead, and foster positive collaborations with industry and international partners. This future is not guaranteed, especially given the decade of tenuous rebuilding of BPS research teams, platforms, and protocols. The investment in the BPS research community and infrastructure within and beyond NASA that is recommended in this decadal survey is necessary to ensure that position. By the end of the decade, the ISS will be a relic of past partnerships, and several missions will have been completed that take research questions well beyond the hostile environment of LEO. The U.S. BPS community has an amazing decade of discovery, transformation, and translation ahead—if we seize it. (See Figure 7-12.)