Should NASA be allowed to expose monkeys to space radiation? Does it matter if it saves astronauts lives?

Interesting question. I think there are two parts to this answer. Firstly there is the question of whether animals should be used for testing for the benefit of human kind.

We know this already goes on with drug testing (which I have to agree with) but also with cosmetics (which I do not agree with) – thankfully I think the trend in use of animals is downwards. The tests are based on observing radiation effects from high energy cosmic radiation – therefore if one wants to see how this might affect Astronauts then there is some argument for using the monkey. The question of whether this benefits man kind in the same way that drug research does is not for me to answer – I really do not know what space travel might bring to the masses over the next hundred years or so.

There are two types of effects that NASA will want to look at – Stochastic radiation effects and Deterministic radiation effects. Deterministic radiation effects are a no-go, essentially this is caused after receiving a large dose of radiation – perhaps during a trip between the Earth and Mars, outside the influence of the planets magnetic fields, where a solar flare causes a fatal radiation dose to be delivered to the Astronaut (perhaps killing them in hours or days). I would guess some on-going research might be based on how best to shield the individuals during such an event (high density radiation shielding is not the type of material one wants to lift into space).

However, this type of radiation effect is not really related to the monkey – so let’s turn to Stochastic. Stochastic radiation effects are related to exposures to much lower levels of radiation (including the background radiation that we all receive just by living on the earth). Unlike deterministic effects (see above) there are no immediate observable clinical effects – the effect is based on the probability of, for example, a fatal cancer occurring sometime later in the life time of the exposed individual.

There is no certainty that this will occur, but as the radiation dose increases, the probability that the effect occurs also increases – the consensus of opinion is that this relationship is linear, although there are many arguments that suggest the risks are far greater (and indeed those that argue the risks are far less! ). So, what I think we are looking at is examining the risk that an Astronaut might develop a cancer (or other, as yet undefined, stochastic related illness) from the exposure he receives say during a flight to and from Mars (or indeed closer to home like the moon).

This is where I start to wonder what real benefit this is going to provide – if induced effects from low level cosmic radiation takes time to develop, then this is going to be a LONG experiment. However, more importantly I’m not sure I am convinced about the justification of this experiment based on predicting stochastic effects in the Astronauts. Why ...? Well consider the following set of probabilities (P) to get to and from Mars (in one piece and returning safely to earth to a hero’s welcome).. Success = P(safe lift off) * P(safe trip to Mars) * P(safe landing on Mars) * P(safe lift off from Mars) *P(safe trip back to Earth Orbit)*P(safe landing back on earth).

Phew – a lot could go wrong, so what is the probability that they will return safely? Now, compare that to the stochastic radiation risk from their trip to and from Mars. In my humble view if they can return safely to earth after all that then cancer later on in life is the least of their worries!

The above is based on what I know about the subject of radiation – and not space flight!

No, I don't think they should be using monkeys to test radiation. I wish they could find a different way to test the effects of radiation without putting any living thing in danger. I understand that it's probably not possible and that it's in the best interest of the humans who risk their lives every time they go on space missions, but why can't they find actual humans who are willing to allow that kind of testing to done on them?

At least then the subjects are being tested by choice rather than by force. There has to be a few people out there crazy enough to consent to that kind of testing. Or (this may be harsh so forgive me if it offends you) what about talking to prisoners who will most likely waste away in prison anyway and see if they'd like to do something with themselves to help others rather than waste away the rest of their life and the government's money to keep them alive?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.