NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 20010002320: Lay and Expert Perceptions of Planetary Protection

8 Pages·0.56 MB·English

by  NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

DccislonScienceResearchInstituInlcc..
1201OakS/rcct
0 Eugcnc,Orcgon97401-3575
Phone[phone]
Fax541.4_5.2403
Ill www.dccisionrcscnrch.org
Lay and Expert
Perceptions of Planetary
Protection
Donald G. MacGregor and Paul Slovic
of Decision Science Research Institute, Eugene, Oregon
Margaret S. Race
of the SETI Institute, Mountain View, California
As space scientists and engineers plan new about the ability of risk-management organ iza-
missions to Mars and other planets in our solar tions (both public and private) to adequately
system, they will face critical questibns about protect people's health and safety.
the potential for biological contamination of
This report presents the results of a set of
planetary surfaces. In a society that places
survey st/idles designed to reveal perceptions
ever-increasing importance on the role of
of planetary exploration and protection fi'om a
public involvement in science and technology
wide range of respondents, including both
policy, questions about risks of biological
members of the general public and experts in
contamination will be examined and debated
the life sciences. The potential value of this
in the media, and will lead to the formation of
research lies inwhat it reveals about percep-
public perceptions of planetary-contamination
tions of risk and benefit that could improve
risks. These perceptions will, over time, form
risk-management policies and practices. For
an important input to the development of
example, efforts to communicate with the
space policy.
public about Mars sample return missions
Previous research in public and expert could benefit from an understanding of the
perceptions of technological risks and hazards specific concerns that nonscientists have about
has shown that many of the problems faced by such a mission by suggesting areas of potential
risk-management organizations are the result improvement in public education and
of differing perceptions of risk (and risk information. Assessment of both public and
management) between the general public and expert perceptions of risk can also be used to
scientific and technical experts. These provide an advanced signal of aspects of
differences manifest themselves both as planetary exploration and protection that may
disagreements about the definition (and level) be particularly sensitive or controversial and
of risk associated with a scientific, technologi- that could prove problematic from a risk-
cal or industrial enterprise, and as distrust management standpoint, perhaps warranting a
Lay and Expert Perceptions of Planetary Protection
more stringent risk-management approach students, representing a population relatively
than would otherwise be the case based on sensitive to environmental hazards, and (c) a
technical considerations alone. group of life scientists outside of the space-
research community. Members of The
The design of the study compares perceptions Planetary Society received the survey as part of
and attitudes about space exploration relevant a special issue of The Planetary Report on
to a Mars sample return mission between three planetary protection, which contained a
respondent groups: (a) members of The number of background articles on planetary
Planetary Society, a group representing protection and related topics. A synopsis of the
individuals with a strong interest in space- issue was prepared as an introduction to the
related issues, (b) a group of university-aged survey for the other two groups.
Results
Perceived Importance of
Space Exploration
Percentagreeandstrongly agree
"i
greater familiarity with NASA's plans for Mars
Space exploration
isessential tothe exploration. Over half of Planetary Society
future ofoursociety
1 respondents were familiar with Mars explora-
tion plans, while less than half of the Student
I1
respondents indicated familiarity. The Life
Iam familiarwith
NASA's plans to Science respondents were only slightly more
conduct missions to
familiar with Mars mission plans than were the
thesurface ofMars
Student respondents. The high level of
familiarity of the Planetary Society group is
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
very likely attributable to a combination of
factors, including this group's inherent interest
The Planetary Society group generally in space issues (as evidenced by their
exhibited greater agreement than did either the membership in The Planetary Society), and the
Student group or the Life Science group that set of articles discussing past and future Mars
space exploration isessential to the future of exploration that appeared in the special issue
our society (see Figure 1). However, the of The Planetary Report inwhich the survey
Planetary Society group also indicated much appeared.
Perceived Benefits of
Space Exploration
The Planetary Society group generally saw the
benefits of planetary exploration as greater
• Benefits greater than the risks of interplanetary contamination.
than risks
Only a very small percentage of the Planetary
Society group saw the risks exceeding the
Benefits and benefits. The majority of the Life Science
risksequal
group also saw the benefits as greater than the
risks, though not as strongly as the Planetary
Risksgreater Society group (see Figure 2). The Student
than bane_ts
group was much more equivocal in its percep-
tions of benefits versus risks: less than half of
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% the group perceived the benefits as greater than
the risks, and slightly over a third saw the
2
Lay and Expert Perceptions of Planetary Protection
benefits and risks as equal.
Scientific
However, for each of the
three groups surveyed, a
minority of respondents
Humanfulfillment
perceived the risks of
planetary contamination to
be greater than the benefits Economic
of exploration.
MIIIIaw
A more detailed indication
of benefit perceptions was
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
obtained from a set of
items relating to four dif-
ferent categories of ben- tween the three groups in terms benefits that most distin-
efits that could result from of their perception of this cat- guished the three surveyed
planetary exploration: egory of benefits. Likewise, groups was human fulfillment
economic benefits, scien- relatively few respondents (25% benefits: The vast majority of
tific benefits, military ben- or less) ineach of the three the Planetary Society group
efits, and humanfitlfillment surveyed groups saw a high saw a high level of human
benefits (see Figure 3). level of military benefits result- fulfillment benefits as result-
ing from planetary exploration. ing from planetary explora-
Respondents in all three Respondents in the Planetary tion. However, only half
surveyed groups tended to Society group were more likely (51.8%) of the Life Science
see high scientific benefits to see high economic benefits group perceived high benefits
resulting from planetary than were respondents in either in this category, and less than
exploration. Indeed, there the Student group or the Life half of the Student group
was little difference be- Science group. The category of perceived such benefits.
Perceptions of Potential Hazards of Planetary Exploration
By a very high percentage,
Percentagreeandstronglaygree
respondents in all three
ContaminatioonftheMartian
survey groups agreed that
environmenbtyEarthlifeIsnota
Mars sample return materi- significanhtazardofplanetary
als should be considered exploration
hazardous until proven
otherwise (see Figure 4). AllmaterialsbroughttoEarthfrom
Marsshouldbeconsideredhazardous
Here, the perceived need
untilprovenotherwise
for caution was strongest
in the Life Science group.
IfEarthandMarswerecontaminated
There was a high level of millionsofyearsagobymeteorites
"don't know" responses fromeachother,thenthereIsno
reasontobeconcernedabout
across all three groups planetaryprotectiontoday
regarding whether life on
Mars, if it exists, poses no
IfthereIslifeonMars,Itposesno
threat to life on Earth.
threattolifeonourplanet
However of those who did
offer an opinion, a clear 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
minority of respondents in
all three groups agreed that gests that, for the most part, perceived itto be a potential
Mars life would pose no respondents were either uncer- hazard, and believed that
threat. Taken together, this tain about the potential for Mars hazardousness should be as-
pattern of responses sug- life to pose a hazard to Earth, or sumed until proven otherwise.
Lay and Expert Perceptions of Planetary i_rotection
Perceptions of Contamination Risk
Management and Contact with the
Martian Surface
Percent agree and strongly agree determine whether it is safe to
I Anymission that couldexpose return biological materials back to
Earth tolife from Marsshould
I becanceled Earth. These responses are
]. . consistent with earlier responses
indicating the generally positive
Humans onspace missions
should notdirectly contact the attitude that Planetary Society
i surface of other planets Inour respondents have toward space
solarsystem
exploration, as well as their
somewhat lower level of concern
Robotic space missions willtell
usallwe needto knowaboul about the potential hazards of
otherplanets
J biological contamination than the
other groups surveyed.
We should provethat no life
existsonMars before sending
humans there Respondents in the Life Science
i! group were more likely to agree
! that humans should not directly
BB
; Expeflments done onMars
i willbesumcient todetermine contact the surface of other planets
, whether itIssafe tobring and that robotic space missions will
materials back to Earth
tell us what we need to know.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
While these responses suggest that
there are attitudinal differences
As with items previously discussed relating to the between the groups surveyed
potential risks of planetary contamination, the Planetary regarding the aggressiveness with
Society group was more likely than the other surveyed which space exploration should be
groups to disagree that Mars missions and contact with the undertaken, the results overall do
Martian surface should be restricted or prohibited because not indicate a serious reluctance on
of potential contamination risks (see Figure 5). Similarly, the part of any of the groups
Planetary Society respondents were more likely to agree surveyed to conduct missions to
that experiments done on Mars will be sufficient to other planets.
Beliefs About the Survivability of Life
on Other Than Home Planet
Perceptions about thepotential risks of forward and Noticeably, there isrelatively high
backward contamination rest in part on beliefs about level of uncertainty among all
survivability of life on a planet other than its home planet respondents to items in this
(see Figure 6). Studies of environmental risk perception category, as evidenced by the large
have generally suggested that laypeople hold views about number of "don't know" responses.
the viability of nature and the endangerment of plant and Thus, perceptions concerning the
animal species due to environmental change that are based survivability of life in an environ-
on a "niche" concept, that life is fragile and adapted for ment other than its natural one are
survival in arelatively narrow or constrained set of possibly poorly formed and
environmental conditions. However, other research on potentially labile.
perception of risk from biotechnology and genetic
engineering suggest that attitudes about some biological Among those who did respond
risks are based on a "fitness" concept, that life is (readily) with either agreement or disagree-
adaptable to new environments. merit, the Student group stands out
Lay and Expert Perceptions of Planetary Protection
from the other two groups Percent agree andstrongly agree
I Tho environment
surveyed. Tile majority of the onMars Istoo harsh
Student group tended to perceive tosustain anylife
fromEarth
that Mars is too harsh an environ-
ment to sustain Earth life, and that
Earth life is not fit enough to Lifethat evolved inEarth's
survive on Mars. Conversely, the dchnatural environment
would nolbefitenough to
majority of the Student group also survive onMars
tended to perceive that Mars life
would not survive on Earth, and to Ifthere islifeonMars, It
mostlikelyhas adapted to
disagree that Mars life would
that specific environment
thrive on Earth because it has andwould notsurvive here
survived in such harsh conditions
on Mars (53.6%). Thus, the Ifthere islife onMars, Ithas
Student group tended to hold a survived Insuchsevere
conditions thai itwould
"niche" viewpoint: that life from
probably thrive onEarth
either planet is fragile and not
likely to survive elsewhere.
I No formoflife presently on
Earth cansurvive
For the Planetary Society group,
unprotected inspace
only weak agreement was
obtained that Mars is too harsh to
sustain Earth life and that Earth 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
life is not fit enough to survive on
Mars, suggesting a "fitness" the Life Science group closely paralleled those of the
model. However, for Mars life the Planetary Society group, with a "fitness" orientation in the
direction of forward contamination (Earth life surviving on
results suggest that the Planetary
Society group tended to be Mars), but a "niche" orientation toward back contamina-
"niche" oriented. The responses of tion.
Morality of Exchanging
Life with Other Planets
Percentagreeandstronglyagree
Ifthere Isanyform
Perceptions of risk and risk
oflifeonMars, it
management, are in some cases, should beleft
there undisturbed
based in part on moral judgments
about what is fundamentally right
or wrong (see Figure 7).
11ismorally wrong
The Student group and the Life tobringlife back to
Earth from
Science group responded another planet
similarly, with approximately half
of the respondents in both groups
agreeing that if there is life on Itismorallywrong
tointroduce lifefrom
Mars, it should be left undis- Earth onto
turbed. Approximately a third of another planet
the respondents in both groups
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
agreed that it is morally wrong to
bring life back to Earth from
another planet. On the issue of
introducing life from Earth onto it was wrong to do so, compared with slightly over half
another planet, approximately a (50.4%) of the Life Science group. Indeed, the Life
third of the Student group believed Science group st0od out most clearly on this matter.
Lay and Expert Perceptions of Planetary Protection
However, respon- the morality of exchanging life slightly more (17.8%) agreed that it
dents in the Plan- between planets. A relatively small iswrong to introduce life from
etary Society group percentage agreed that it is morally Earth onto another planet.
appeared much less wrong to bring life back to Earth
concerned about from another planet, and only
Perceptions of Planetary Protection in
the Context of Societal Risks
Respondents were Percentmoderate andhighrisk
-- r-'-------
asked to rate a ----_ _,O Ozone layerdepletion
number of societal ............... i .........................................................
z} [] Pesticides Inrood
risks as a means of ! " -
A • i _ Global warming
placing risks asso-
.............. !......................................................
ciated with plan- Bacteria infood
etary protection z_ • E Nuclear power plants
and exploration in a
• I/I Radon
broader context
(see Figure 8). Electmmagnefic fields
• [] Salelllto debris
In general, the
! Asteroids
three space-related
items tended to fall Biological contamination
from Mars missions
at the bottom of the
0% 20% 40% 80% 80% t00%
hazard list for all
three respondent minimal context provided by the missions isnot at this point an
groups. It appears hazard items used here, biological outstanding risk in these respon-
that, at least in the contamination from future Mars dents' minds.
Trust in NASA
Percent moderate and hightrust
A powerful deter- --7
Successfully complete a
minant of public
Mars sample return mission
perception and ac- --I
ceptance of risk is
the trust it holds for Protect Earth from
contamination byMars
the organizations organisms
responsible for risk
m . Protect Mars rmm
management (see
contamination byEarth
Figure 9). organisms
All three groups Respect public values and
indicated a high opinionsabout thedsks and
benefits ofspace exploration
degree of trust in
NASA to success-
Honestly Inform thepublic
fully complete a aboutrisksfromplanetary
contamination
Mars sample return O% 25% 50% 75% 1oo%
mission, although
less so for the
Student group than majority of respondents in the INASA to accomplish planetary-
lbr the other two Planetary Society group had a I protection goals. However, respon-
Jdents in the Student and Life
groups. A large moderate or high level oftrusfin
Lay and Expert Perceptions of Planetary Protection
Science groups were somewhat less trusting in about a third of the student group responded
this regard. with moderate or high trust in NASA's respect
for public values and opinions and honesty in
The lowest levels of trust for all three groups
risk communication.
were with regard to risk management and risk
communication. Though somewhat over half The relative skepticism and distrust that all
of the Planetary Society group expressed trust three surveyed groups appeared to show for
in NASA to respect public values and opinions NASA's abilities to deal with public issues can
about the risks and benefits of space explora- be looked upon as reflective of the general
tion and to honestly inform the public about public distrust of government and industry in
planetary-contamination risks, the Student and managing risk issues in society.
Life Science groups were less trusting. Only
Environmental Group
Affiliation and Perceptions of
Planetary Protection
Table 1. Comparison of mean scale score values by environmental-group affiliation
(Planetary Society survey group only)
irl
No environmental- Non-Greenpeaee Greenpeaee
Scale group affiliation affiliation affiliation F-test
BENEFIT 2.49 2.46 2.47
n.s.
THREAT 2.68 2.70 2.79
EXPLORE 3.27 3.24 3.!5
MORALITY [.82 1.86 2.07 __tt _t
LIFE 2.86 2.75 2.91
ECOLOCY 2.45 2.59 2.89
TRUST 2.79 2.82 2.62 t*
**p <.01
***p <.001
****p<.0001
Respondents in the Planetary Society group ing respondents were divided into (a) those
were asked to indicate if they were affiliated who tended to be affiliated with environmental
with an environmental group and to list the groups known for taking strongly activist
group(s). Of the 3940 U.S. and Canadian positions on environmental issues, and (b)
respondents, 1027 (26.1%) indicated that they those who were affiliated with less activist
were affiliated with an environmental group. groups. To facilitate this division, respondents
The number of different environmental groups who indicated an affiliation with Greenpeace
named by respondents was quite extensive, were put in the more activist group. The
and included both national and international remaining group was comprised of respondents
groups, as well as local or regional groups. who indicated an affiliation with one or more
Over 350 different groups were named by environmental groups, none of which was
those who indicated some environmental Greenpeace.
group affiliation.
This division of respondents was then
The Planetary Society group was divided into compared in terms of mean scores on each of a
three subgroups. The first subgroup was set of item scales developed by summing
comprised of respondents who indicated no responses to categories of items all measuring
environmental group affiliation. The remain- the same concept (see Table 1).
7
Lay and Expert Perceptions of Planetary Protection
Though the three groups did not differ signifi- ing elsewhere (LIFE),more concerned about
cantly on percelvcd benefit of space explora- preserving and protecting nature (ECOI,OGY),
tion, they did differ on other dimensions. and less trusting of NASA (TRUST).It is inter-
Compared with those respondents indicating esting to note that this same pattern of differ-
no environmental affiliation, respondents in ences also existed between the Greenpeace
the Greenpeace group were: more likely to group and the group of respondents indicating
view planetary contamination as a threat an environmental affiliation other than Green-
(_aE^r), less aggressive in their approach to peace, suggesting that attitudes about space
space exploration (EXPLORE),more concerned exploration and planetary protection are related
about the morality of exchanging life between to other environmental attitudes and particu-
planets (MOaALITV),more sure about life exist- larly to environmental activism.
Discussion
Overall, the results of the study indicate that taken to mean that Mars sample return
public perception of biological hazards missions should not be conducted. Indeed, all
associated with a Mars sample return mission of the groups surveyed expressed a high degree
is not seen as a large risk relative to other of trust and confidence inNASA to success-
technological and environmental risks and fully conduct a sample return mission and
hazards, such as nuclear technologies, food accomplish planetary-protection goals. There
risks, and ozone depletion. However, its was, however, some skepticism that NASA
perceived magnitude at present may be due would be honest and open with regard to
more to the paucity of information pertaining informing the public and considering public
to such a hazard than to its inherent qualities as attitudes and values.
a risk.
Further research should be undertaken to
In general, all of the groups surveyed, hy and examii:e the basis for these and or!'.-, differ-
expert alike, indicated that NASA should take ences that appeared in the results between the
a cautious approach in dealing with materials lay and expert groups, including further
that pose a potential or unknown biological surveys with other expert groups, such as those
hazard. However, there was no indication in who have a background in microbiology,
the results that such cautiousness should be infectious diseases, and exobiology.
f
This research was supported in part by were most helpful in recruiting life-
the National Aeronautics and Space science experts for the study. We would
Administration and SETI, under subcon- also like to thank C. K. Mertz for her
tract #986-9601 to Decision Science thorough statistical analysis of the data,
Research Institute. The authors would Dr. Stephen Johnson for obtaining the
like to thank Dr. Donald Di Vincenzi of student sample, and Leisha Mullican for
NASA Ames Research Center for his her careful attention to manuscript
guidance in the early stages of project preparation.
development, as well as Charlene
Anderson and Gloria Joyce of The To obtain the complete technical paper
Planetary Report for their invaluable on which this brief report isbased, please
role in editing and preparing the survey contact the first author, Dr. Donald
for publication. Special thanks as well to MacGregor, at Decision Science
Dr. John Schwartz and Dr. Michaela Zint Research Institute (Decision Research) in
of the Michigan Sea Grant Institute who Eugene, Oregon.
J