Biology research on the Space Station

Factual Questions
1

Put up on this thread, but not needed for this question:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=64865

My query below was in response to something stated on the above thread, but I think it stands as a GQ topic on it’s own, so I just cut and pasted it here (so it’s the same that was asked on the other thread without answer):
As far as the space station thing goes, I may very well be wrong, but my impression is that “zero-gravity science” is the buzz word for the public to disguise that fact that the real purpose of the space station is to subidized the aerospace industry.

This is not my area, but after reading Robert Park’s ‘Voodoo Science’, I’m under the impression that there have been NO significant advances in the field of biology that have come from zero-gravity research. I may be wrong and if anyone can show me some research published in a high impact-factor journal, I’ll glady read it and reevalute my position.

‘American Scientist’ had something a few months ago about it and the article had drawing of a frog swimming with a different motion, a lizard grabbing its own tail, and a rat cling to the back of a monkey(?). New animal behaviors demonstrated in zero-G. WTF? This is the biology research worthy of the millions, if not a billion+ that the U.S. and other countries are going to spend? O.K. they had something about oocyte formation also, but why show us frog swimming then?

I’m all for space exploration, in fact, I want to see more. If I hadn’t have gone into biology, I probably would have done astronomy. But don’t try to bullshit me.
Humans have be going into space in the name of science now for like 40 years. Somebody on the SDMB please tell me where to find the ground breaking biological research articles. I’d honestly like to read them.

But if it’s a smoke screen to prop up our aerospace industry, we could take that budget and probably find a way grow meat in a lab using all that money (eventually and then maybe). But a proposal might be funded.

This may be innaccurate hearsay, but in my field the researchers bitch about the fact that one B-2 bomber costs more than the entire annual USDA research funding budget. Supposedly, if you cut one bomber and gave the money to the USDA, you could fund every grant proposal in a given year. (Whether all those proposals deserve funding is a different story).

Still, somebody give me a ‘Nature’ or ‘Science’ or similar journal article on zero-G biology breakthroughs. Please. I’d like to be wrong about this.

In response to the one guy in the other thread that cared to answer–Scientific American doesn’t count (but thanks for pointing it out). Real journal papers, please.

2

I think there is a certain circularity in the justification:

“In order to keep people in space for long periods of time, we need to do research on the effects on humans of long-term exposure to space, which we can only do by exposing people to space for long periods.” (Obviously not “exposure” in the sense of hard vacuum, since it’s pretty apparent what the effects of that are.)

This is justifiable if we think in terms of gathering the data and know-how for eventual manned deep space missions; e.g., missions to Mars. Whether it’s justifiable to send people instead of just robots to Mars is another Great Debate, which forum this topic probably should have been started in.

3

That’s a rather biology-centric view of the situation. You seem to make a leap in your reasoning that “zero-gravity science” equals zero-gravity biology research. And therefore, since zero-g biology research is not producing good results, the space station has no purpose. I don’t think that’s a valid assumption. Last I checked, the main hopes for zero-g research were in material science. Better crystal growing that could be used for better semi-conductors and such.

4

Yeah, but most of that stuff would probably be better served by not having humans clumping around, kicking up vibrations and breathing on everything. Research on space medicine and human biology in space is the only research which requires humans in space, and probably the only research which is really even benefitted by having humans in space.

Personally, I think the only ultimate justification for human spaceflight is human colonization of space (either in space habitats or on other worlds). There’s no reason in principle why exploration and even large-scale exploitation of space–solar power satellites and asteroid mines–couldn’t be done with robotics and telepresence. There are still things humans can do in those areas that robots can’t, but that’s likely just a temporary state of affairs which further improvements in technology will correct.

And personally, I’m in favor of the human colonization of space–but I guess that gets into a lot of philosophical questions.

5

[Moderator watch ON]

Asking what research has been or can be performed in space, and the progress of that research, is GQ. Asking if space travel is thereby worthwhile is GD. Let’s stick the facts, OK?
[Moderator watch OFF]

One point with human reactions to weightlessness is that if we don’t want weightlessness for, say, a trip to Mars, we don’t need it. It’s simple enough to spin a ship to produce artificial gravity.

6

OK. I should have edited my OP instead of just cutting and pasting it from the other thread.

My GQ is: what real breakthroughs in biology (or material science) have been made in zero-G?

I know that research on effects of long-term residence in space has merits with regard to human space travel. But the American public is footing most of the bill for the international space station. And one of the selling points is biological research performed in zero-G.

And SmackFu–good point, but given the cost of transportation into space, have any breakthroughs been made in material science? I don’t know and would welcome some as justification of the billions spent.

Animal behavior experiments like the frog swimming and the lizard tail grasping reported in ‘American Scientist’? I’m thinking about how much it costs to transport materials into space. Distilled water dosen’t cost much here on Earth, what does it cost to send it into orbit?

And does anybody really believe John Glenn was sent back into space on the shuttle for geriatric weightlessness research? The first American to orbit the Earth just happened to be the most qualified subject for this research. I don’t begrudge Glenn his return to space; he deserved it (I’ll be pissed when geriatric Bill Clinton gets a shuttle trip in the name of science), but to call reason for it scientific research is BS.

If I ask: ‘Is it worth it’? This is a GD question and maybe I should post there. Chronos, feel free to move it if you think it appropriate. I’m probably blurring the lines between GQ and GD.

So, I’m asking if there have been any research breakthroughs in biological or material science because of research in space? (And I’m thinking research published in a respectable journal as evidence).

Give me a factual example of some research and not something that NASA uses to justify its budget.

7

I overheard someone telling somebody else that some scientists had discovered that the human body starts producing dozens of new proteins when in zero-g, but no other animal does this. Anybody know if there is any truth in this or whether it is some weird urban legend?

8

Badtz Maru–this is sorta my point. What real research has been done? Why would humans be the only animal that exibits unique protein expression in zero-G? Show me a real research article.

You need your BS detector when you read about research in the general media.

And in the scientific literature too; even stuff in peer reviewed journals isn’t gold. One needs to be able to interpet data for one’s self. Unfortunately, even research in peer reviewed journal can be suspect.

9

Remnants in our genetic code from the days when our ancestors were gold-skinned star-travellers. One day may we return to their ancient glory, lost amongst their ruined colony planet - racked by the devastation of total war - that we call Earth.

–Tim

10

Looking up some other information, I came across this. I don’t know if it qualifies as what you’re looking for, but it does discuss research in micro-g. Maybe the contributors in the front can give you a starting place.

From http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/Microgravity_Teachers_Guide.pdf (this is a pdf file - you need Acrobat reader to view):

More in the document, including a description of Micro-g experiments and flights. Not much in the way of specific results. Hope it helps.