NASA has been considering this danger for a very long time. After their famous moon-landing in 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins had to stay in quarantine for three weeks straight, to minimize the risk of unknown Lunar microorganisms infecting Earth. Today, we think the moon a lifeless rock, but can we say the same for Mars? Is it really lifeless? The threat of dangerous organisms is a big one, and since we do not know if Mars hosts living beings, it remains an open one.
Carl Segan and other scientists advocated strict protocols for space missions during the mid-twentieth century, to reduce the chance of extra-terrestrial organisms infecting Earth's ecosystem. The thing is, the protocols have been quite controversial, and with NASA planning to send humans to Mars, a debate is heating up over their importance.
How should we approach the future exploration of Mars? How should we go about sending astronauts to the red planet -- and how soon?
Mars - NASA picture
The aforementioned protocols state that any and all samples brought back from a planet that is not Earth be held in a special facility, and that astronauts returning from another planet be held in quarantine until it is certain that they harbor no alien pathogens.The protocols seem perfectly reasonable given our own experience right here on Earth. "We brought smallpox to the new world when the Europeans came over, and they took home syphilis", says Dr. John Rummel, an astrobiologist who twice served as NASA’s planetary protection officer.
Given such facts, Rummel thinks it's possible that extraterrestrial microbes could harm astronauts and even people on Earth -- and that citizens should be aware of the potential threat. "I’ve found that most taxpayers don’t want to pay for government programs that might kill them", he quips.
These protocols are, of course, designed to protect life on Earth, but they are also designed to protect any life on other planets. Why would we protect other planets from infection? Because that would compromise our ability to answer what is arguably the biggest question in science today: Are we alone in the universe?
Were we to discover microbes on -- say -- Venus, we'd have to be able to answer one question: Are these microbes native to Venus? If we would not protect life on other planets, they might just be microbes transported there by a rover from Earth.
Back to Mars. It’s not an idle concern. NASA has already grappled with the possibility that its Mars rovers -- which before leaving Earth underwent intensive cleaning procedures designed to render them sterile -- might yet harbor bacterial spores that could seed terrestrial life on the red planet.
In 2016, the Curiosity Rover came within close range of dark streaks on the Martian surface. Scientists believed the streaks might be evidence of flowing water -- and as we know, wherever there is water there might be life. And some scientists, including astrobiologist Dr. Alberto Fairén, a visiting scientist at Cornell University, wished that the rover could be steered over to the streaks to have a look.
But while the protocols allow the rovers to visit dry areas on Mars, they forbid the vehicles from venturing into potentially watery areas where life might exist.
It’s a disturbing paradox: We visit Mars to look for life, but we can’t visit the regions that might be especially likely to harbor it.
Fairén argues that sending astronauts to Mars would render the protocols moot. After all, humans carry germs in and on their bodies — a thousand species of bacteria on our skin alone. In a new paper published in the journal Astrobiology, Fairén and his colleagues argue that the harsh conditions on Mars would probably kill any terrestrial bacteria or fungi that were to get there — and that, consequently, the protocols are pointless.
Other scientists disagree. They say that it’s impossible to know for sure that space vehicles or astronauts visiting Mars from Earth wouldn’t "infect" the red planet. And so Rummel is among those who advocate a stepwise exploration of Mars before astronauts ever set foot on the red planet.
That would mean, first of all, collecting samples of Martian rock and bringing them back to Earth for analysis. The next step might be to send astronauts not to Mars itself but to its moon Phobos, from which they would closely observe the Martian surface and deploy robots there — all without risk of contaminating it.
"I think it's a wonderful thing to want to send humans to Mars", Rumell says. "But I don’t think we’re ready."
What do you think of this development? Let us know in the comments!
WRITTEN BY Nesta - EDITED BY Eaglesg
