of the real and the answerable. They have, in fact, properly entered science and, do what we may now, man will surely seek their answer sooner or later.

SEARCH FOR LIFE ELSEWHERE WILL INEVITABLY INVOLVE MAN

This search for life elsewhere must begin with unmanned probes carrying life-detection systems. But it will inevitably demand that man must get into space himself. The search for life on Mars, for example, ultimately will require that Martian samples be studied in manned laboratories, preferably here on earth. Many of us believe that the retrieval of Martian samples should be recognized explicitly as the ultimate objective of all foreseeable planetary missions. It is doubtful if such retrieval can be accomplished satisfactorily, Mr. Chairman, by an unmanned expedition as Dr. Urey emphasized with respect to the moon. Of course, we should get on with the job as soon as possible, using remote controlled life-detection systems, some of which are now available. We can expect worthwhile dividends from these early expeditions, but we shall never be satisfied with negative results from our instrumental life detectors because they are intrinsically hampered in their scope by our current ignorance of the nature of whatever life there is.

Should these preliminary sallies give us positive results, the urgency for man to get there will only increase. It is clear, therefore, that while the intellectual appeal and status of the extraterrestrial life question stands out above all else in space biology, we are also confronted with the inescapable task of providing the physiological basis for prolonged manned space flight.

EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE IS MAJOR SCIENTIFIC QUESTION

Here again, I would like to depart from what written notes I have and restate what I believe to be proper perspective on the three sections of the space biology program I enumerated at the beginning. I believe I am speaking not only for myself but quite a large fraction of the biological community in isolating the extraterrestrial life question as the primary, indeed, in a sense the only major scientific question at stake in the space biology program, and that the other aspects of space biology, the study of environmental biology in space, and the physiology of manned space flight are subservient to the search for extraterrestrial life. But subservient as they are, they are equally essential. I do not believe that we can adequately pursue a scientific study of extraterrestrial life without ultimately having a man-in-space program fully developed. It is appropriate to register here my strong conviction that the most conspicuous weakness in the present NASĂ biological program is in the area of the human physiology necessary for manned space flight.

ASTRONAUT SELECTION NEEDS REEXAMINATION

Incidentally I feel that the whole business of astronaut selection needs examination in this respect. For the man-in-space program to continue and have scientific meaning, at least a proportion of the astronauts must be trained scientists. Many of us in the scientific community have emphasized this before, but it seems to be a very

hard nut to crack. The long-term justification of the man-in-space program demands that some of the men put into space be not just competent technicians but fully trained scientific observers.

PROBES MUST BE STERILIZED TO AVOID CONTAMINATION

Having emphasized so strongly my view that the biological exploration of Mars is the prime goal of the life sciences in space, I feel bound to add, with equally strong emphasis, a warning about an associated danger. This concerns the surprisingly formidable task of sterilizing our space probes to avoid contaminating celestial bodies with terrestrial life and, hence, potentially ruining forever the chance of answering the central question which is, after all, the ultimate justification for the whole biological program.

Already, as surely you all know, the urgency of the Ranger missions, has led us collectively, as the scientific community, to relax our early demands for absolute rigor in the sterilization of spacecraft going to the moon. There is good evidence that currently available methods of sterilization impair the performance and reliability of some components in spacecraft hardware. What I wish to urge is that whereas it was all right to undertake the moon missions, Ranger, Surveyor, and now Apollo, almost completely (as I see it) in the context of a no-holds-barred prestige race with the U.S.S.R., we cannot and must not undertake the planetary landing missions in precisely the same

context.

If we do, we shall almost certainly be confronted in a few years with a terrible dilemma. We shall have declared our intent to race, we shall have invested many millions or probably billions of dollars; we will have invested our national prestige also, only, perhaps, to find that in the later stages of the mission, we cannot fully guarantee that sterility of payloads which the plain morality of science demands.

If that situation develops, we will be remarkable as a Nation if we can withstand the political pressure from all sides to go ahead in spite of our inability to protect what, after all, is a unique and irreplaceable opportunity for man as a whole.

We are confronted now not only with a wonderful challenge and a wonderful opportunity to enlarge our knowledge of nature, but we are confronted with a terrible responsibility to protect that opportunity for man, as such, including man of the future, if we cannot do the job properly now; and what we have to protect it from are the irresistable political pressures that are likely to arise in a narrow, too nationalistic prestige race.

TWO MEASURES UPON WHICH BIOLOGISTS SHOULD INSIST

I have gone through this argument to lead up to a couple of concrete measures which I believe the scientific community wants to insist upon, or at least the biological community wants to insist upon.

First, we need a statement at the highest political level, and by that I mean a statement at the Presidential level comparable to the statement made over the Moon projects, that the search for life elsewhere in the solar system is a national goal. I believe, moreover, that it should become the goal of the whole national space program in the sense that a manned lunar landing is the dominant goal now. But

in spelling out that national commitment, the President should be explicit that we, and every other nation, have an overriding responsibility to mankind in general not to let the pressures of a cold war prestige race force a compromise upon us when it comes to spacecraft sterilization. We cannot, and I suppose we should not, renounce all competitiveness in pursuing this goal. But in maintaining the stimulus of competition, we must do so with the fullest national awareness of and commitment to the overriding moral responsibility involved.

Secondly, we must invest far more effort and imagination in the technology of spacecraft sterilization than we have so far.

CENTRAL LABORATORY NEEDED FOR EXOBIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

In closing I wish to stress the need for a central laboratory for exobiological research. I believe that the important questions of exobiology far outstrip the amount and the quality of scientific manpower that has been brought to bear on them at the present time. I would like to comment also (and this bears on something which one of the earlier speakers said) that if and when such an Institute for the Centralization of Exobiological Research is created, that it should be established free of administrative domination by engineers, in particular, who are the dominant force within the NASA itself. While I have the greatest respect for engineers, I think that many times they are singularly insensitive to the problems and the views of scientists. As a matter of fact I think they do not really regard biologists as scientists anyway. And if the work in exobiology is to be carried forward successfully, the program will have to be protected from being strangled by engineering authority.

I will now speak only briefly on some of the more general questions. What I have said so far was directed to your charge to give an evaluation of relative importance to various aspects of the biological program. In summary, I have stated the extraterrestrial life question is outstandingly the most important, and that the man-in-space program needs far more physiological research than it is getting.

As to priorities within the space program, as a whole, it is clear that the biological work has been almost minimal. There are many reasons for this. This is not entirely the fault of the Space Administration, and I do not think it is too profitable to go into the reasons for it. But I would like to venture my own opinion, which I know is shared by at least many others, including some physical scientists, that the question of extraterrestrial life is not only the most important biological question, but in some respects the most important scientific question in general which the space program as a whole could pursue.

REDUCED SPACE FUNDS WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY GO TO OTHER WORTHY CAUSES

I am extremely sympathetic to Professor Kusch's concern over things like air and water pollution, the conservation of water tables, the study of mental health, and of cancer. But I agree with Professor Urey in that I do not see the space program deflecting money from any of these things. The lack of support for many of them is because it is politically impossible to get the money to them; and if the money

were withheld from the space program, I do not believe it would automatically or easily go to any of those which he listed. And in the cancer research there is no lack of funds.

SPACE EFFORT IS OUR RESPONSE TO AN IMMENSE CHALLENGE

I agree further with Dr. Urey in my belief that on the other hand, we are more likely to tackle these issues if we seize a really bold one, like the space program, as a national undertaking, as a national challenge. My feeling is that while there are really great scientific questions in biology and the physical sciences which might be answered by the space program, its real merit is that it represents a response on the part of our society to an immense challenge. I cannot really believe we are free to turn away from it; and I would hope we do notthat we seize the challenge and that our response is as bold and worthwhile as similar adventures of the Elizabethan era.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much, Doctor. I think you will find when the hearings are published that a great many people are going to be extremely interested in the things you have said today, as I find myself interested.

I was particularly struck with your sentence-I hope I have this approximately correct-that you do not believe that our society can perceive so great a challenge and not go after it.

Dr. PITTENDRIGH. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That is very plain truth.

Of course, we are naturally interested in what you said about a scientific observer.

I made a little talk to the Senate on Monday the 27th of May, which I have had reprinted, and I want to send you a copy of it because it appears to me that there is a need to have a scientific observer on these flights, particularly to the Moon.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SMITH

Senator Smith has sent these specific questions to you.

You are quoted in the New York Times of April 25, 1963, as saying that

In view of the "prestige" race, this country was relaxing provisions for sterilization of vehicles to be sent to the moon.

Senator Smith would like to have your comment on the finding of the summer study, "A Review of Space Research," sponsored by Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences at the State University at Iowa, June 17, to August 10, 1962.

This finding states that

Because of the program schedule imposed on the lunar program by nonscientific considerations, time probably will not permit development and incorporation of certain advanced sterilization concepts.

I want to say that I do not want to take any advantage of you. If you want to have a chance and look at everything you said on this subject and then comment, I would be happy for you to do so. If you would like to comment at this time, we would like to have your comment at this time.

Dr. PITTENDRIGH. Well, these questions are so very important that I would like time to study them, and I shall send in written answers. (Senator Smith's questions for Dr. Pittendrigh are as follows:)

Dr. Pittendrigh, you were quoted in the New York Times of April 25, 1963 (p. 12), as saying that "in view of the prestige race, this country was relaxing provisions for sterilization of vehicles to be sent to the moon." In connection with this subject, I should like to have you comment on the finding of the summer study "A Review of Space Research" sponsored by the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Sciences at the State University of Iowa, June 17 to August 10, 1962. This finding states that "Because of the program schedule imposed on the lunar program by nonscientific considerations, time probably will not permit development and incorporation of certain advanced sterilization concepts."

1. Does this mean that you do not have sufficient time to develop desirable and necessary sterilization procedures?

2. Please identify precisely the nonscientific considerations mentioned in the study.

3. What types of advanced sterilization concepts would you develop if you had more time than this decade to reach the moon?

4. Is the problem also one of money? How much would it cost in dollars to develop advanced sterilization procedures for space vehicles?

5. Do you know whether the Russians have offered to cooperate with us in the sterilization of space vehicles for lunar landings or for landings on Mars or other celestial bodies?

6. Do you know whether the position of NASA on the sterilization problem is the same as that of our National Academy of Sciences in its participation in the work of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR)?

7. Has this Committee on Space Research of the International Council on Scientific Unions taken any position on the sterilization problem, and, if so, what is this position?

(The following remarks are a revision and clarification of the statement made by Dr. Pittendrigh at the hearing:)

Dr. PITTENDRIGH. I shall first respond to the questions that Senator Smith has given me.

I have already alluded to the surprising difficulties that have been encountered in spacecraft sterilization. An example is afforded by the transitors used extensively in the electronic equipment on board. If a transistor is cracked open, it is found to contain viable bacterial spores. The problem of killing these spores without also "killing" the transistor have proved very difficult and is still not solved. The difficulties of sterilization did not, I think, become fully apparent to anyone until after the Ranger program was begun. you know all space shots have very great leadtimes to them-times as great as 1 to 3 years. It is extremely difficult to modify such programs significantly, once begun.

As

The nonscientific considerations I alluded to in discussing relaxation of sterilization standards for Ranger shots concern the immense loss of money, program momentum, and prestige that would have been incurred by a decision to abandon Ranger or postpone it indefinitely until all remaining technical problems in sterilization had been solved. It should be emphasized here that sterilization of moon spacecraft has not been totally abandoned. It is only for certain components (especially batteries, some types of transistors and wiring) whose efficiency or reliability is impaired that there has been a relaxation of standards. These are few, so the probability of contaminating the moon, even with the relaxed standards, is low. It is, however, not as low as we would want for Mars. There is a finite, if low, probability that we will get viable organisms onto the Moon. The conditions of dryness, temperature and incident radition, however, make it highly unlikely these organisms will survive and even more unlikely they will spread far from the site of initial impact.