Loneliness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solitude, Jean-Jacques Henner

 

Loneliness is a complex and usually unpleasant emotional response to isolation. Loneliness typically includes anxious feelings about a lack of connection or communication with other beings, both in the present and extending into the future. As such, loneliness can be felt even when surrounded by other people. The causes of loneliness are varied and include social, mental, emotional, and physical factors. 

Research has shown that loneliness is prevalent throughout society, including people in marriages, relationships, families, veterans, and those with successful careers. It has been a long explored theme in the literature of human beings since classical antiquity. Loneliness has also been described as social pain—a psychological mechanism meant to motivate an individual to seek social connections. Loneliness is often defined in terms of one's connectedness to others, or more specifically as "the unpleasant experience that occurs when a person's network of social relations is deficient in some important way".

Common causes

People can experience loneliness for many reasons, and many life events may cause it, such as a lack of friendship relations during childhood and adolescence, or the physical absence of meaningful people around a person. At the same time, loneliness may be a symptom of another social or psychological problem, such as chronic depression. 

Many people experience loneliness for the first time when they are left alone as infants. It is also a very common, though normally temporary, consequence of a breakup, divorce, or loss of any important long-term relationship. In these cases, it may stem both from the loss of a specific person and from the withdrawal from social circles caused by the event or the associated sadness.

The loss of a significant person in one's life will typically initiate a grief response; in this situation, one might feel lonely, even while in the company of others. Loneliness may also occur after the birth of a child (often expressed in postpartum depression), after marriage, or following any other socially disruptive event, such as moving from one's home town into an unfamiliar community, leading to homesickness. Loneliness can occur within unstable marriages or other close relationships of a similar nature, in which feelings present may include anger or resentment, or in which the feeling of love cannot be given or received. Loneliness may represent a dysfunction of communication, and can also result from places with low population densities in which there are comparatively few people to interact with. Loneliness can also be seen as a social phenomenon, capable of spreading like a disease. When one person in a group begins to feel lonely, this feeling can spread to others, increasing everybody's risk for feelings of loneliness. People can feel lonely even when they are surrounded by other people.

A twin study found evidence that genetics account for approximately half of the measurable differences in loneliness among adults, which was similar to the heritability estimates found previously in children. These genes operate in a similar manner in males and females. The study found no common environmental contributions to adult loneliness.

Typology

Feeling lonely vs. being socially isolated

There is a clear distinction between feeling lonely and being socially isolated (for example, a loner). In particular, one way of thinking about loneliness is as a discrepancy between one's necessary and achieved levels of social interaction, while solitude is simply the lack of contact with people. Loneliness is therefore a subjective experience; if a person thinks they are lonely, then they are lonely. People can be lonely while in solitude, or in the middle of a crowd. What makes a person lonely is the fact that they need more social interaction or a certain type of social interaction that is not currently available. A person can be in the middle of a party and feel lonely due to not talking to enough people. Conversely, one can be alone and not feel lonely; even though there is no one around that person is not lonely because there is no desire for social interaction. There have also been suggestions that each person has their own optimal level of social interaction. If a person gets too little or too much social interaction, this could lead to feelings of loneliness or over-stimulation.

Solitude can have positive effects on individuals. One study found that, although time spent alone tended to depress a person's mood and increase feelings of loneliness, it also helped to improve their cognitive state, such as improving concentration. Furthermore, once the alone time was over, people's moods tended to increase significantly. Solitude is also associated with other positive growth experiences, religious experiences, and identity building such as solitary quests used in rites of passages for adolescents.

Loneliness can also play an important role in the creative process. In some people, temporary or prolonged loneliness can lead to notable artistic and creative expression, for example, as was the case with poets Emily Dickinson and Isabella di Morra, and numerous musicians. This is not to imply that loneliness itself ensures this creativity, rather, it may have an influence on the subject matter of the artist and more likely be present in individuals engaged in creative activities.

Transient vs. chronic loneliness

The other important typology of loneliness focuses on the time perspective. In this respect, loneliness can be viewed as either transient or chronic. It has also been referred to as state and trait loneliness. 

Transient (state) loneliness is temporary in nature, caused by something in the environment, and is easily relieved. Chronic (trait) loneliness is more permanent, caused by the person, and is not easily relieved. For example, when a person is sick and cannot socialize with friends would be a case of transient loneliness. Once the person got better it would be easy for them to alleviate their loneliness. A person who feels lonely regardless of if they are at a family gathering, with friends, or alone is experiencing chronic loneliness. It does not matter what goes on in the surrounding environment, the experience of loneliness is always there.

Loneliness as a human condition

The existentialist school of thought views loneliness as the essence of being human. Each human being comes into the world alone, travels through life as a separate person, and ultimately dies alone. Coping with this, accepting it, and learning how to direct our own lives with some degree of grace and satisfaction is the human condition.

Some philosophers, such as Sartre, believe in an epistemic loneliness in which loneliness is a fundamental part of the human condition because of the paradox between people's consciousness desiring meaning in life and the isolation and nothingness of the universe. Conversely, other existentialist thinkers argue that human beings might be said to actively engage each other and the universe as they communicate and create, and loneliness is merely the feeling of being cut off from this process.

Frequency

There are several estimates and indicators of loneliness. It has been estimated that approximately 60 million people in the United States, or 20% of the total population, feel lonely. Another study found that 12% of Americans have no one with whom to spend free time or to discuss important matters. Other research suggests that this rate has been increasing over time. The General Social Survey found that between 1985 and 2004, the number of people the average American discusses important matters with decreased from three to two. Additionally, the number of Americans with no one to discuss important matters with tripled (though this particular study may be flawed). In the UK research by Age UK shows half a million people more than 60 years old spend each day alone without social interaction and almost half a million more see and speak to no one for 5 or 6 days a week. On the other hand, the Community Life Survey, 2016 to 2017, by the UK's Office for National Statistics, found that young adults in England aged 16 to 24 reported feeling lonely more often than those in older age groups.

Loneliness appears to have intensified in every society in the world as modernization occurs. A certain amount of this loneliness appears to be related to greater migration, smaller household sizes, a larger degree of media consumption (all of which have positive sides as well in the form of more opportunities, more choice in family size, and better access to information), all of which relates to social capital. 

Within developed nations, loneliness has shown the largest increases among two groups: seniors and people living in low-density suburbs. Seniors living in suburban areas are particularly vulnerable, for as they lose the ability to drive, they often become "stranded" and find it difficult to maintain interpersonal relationships.

Loneliness is prevalent in vulnerable groups in society. In New Zealand the fourteen surveyed groups with the highest prevalence of loneliness most/all of the time in descending order are: disabled, recent migrants, low income households, unemployed, single parents, rural (rest of South Island), seniors aged 75+, not in the labour force, youth aged 15-24, no qualifications, not housing owner-occupier, not in a family nucleus, Māori, and low personal income.

Americans seem to report more loneliness than any other country, though this finding may simply be an effect of greater research volume. A 2006 study in the American Sociological Review found that Americans on average had only two close friends in which to confide, which was down from an average of three in 1985. The percentage of people who noted having no such confidant rose from 10% to almost 25%, and an additional 19% said they had only a single confidant, often their spouse, thus raising the risk of serious loneliness if the relationship ended. The modern office environment has been demonstrated to give rise to loneliness. This can be especially prevalent in individuals prone to social isolation who can interpret the business focus of co-workers for a deliberate ignoring of needs.

Whether a correlation exists between Internet usage and loneliness is a subject of controversy, with some findings showing that Internet users are lonelier and others showing that lonely people who use the Internet to keep in touch with loved ones (especially seniors) report less loneliness, but that those trying to make friends online became lonelier. On the other hand, studies in 2002 and 2010 found that "Internet use was found to decrease loneliness and depression significantly, while perceived social support and self-esteem increased significantly" and that the Internet "has an enabling and empowering role in people's lives, by increasing their sense of freedom and control, which has a positive impact on well-being or happiness." The one apparently unequivocal finding of correlation is that long driving commutes correlate with dramatically higher reported feelings of loneliness (as well as other negative health impacts).

Effects

Mental health

Loneliness by Hans Thoma (National Museum in Warsaw)

 

Loneliness has been linked with depression, and is thus a risk factor for suicide. Émile Durkheim has described loneliness, specifically the inability or unwillingness to live for others, i.e. for friendships or altruistic ideas, as the main reason for what he called egoistic suicide. In adults, loneliness is a major precipitant of depression and alcoholism. People who are socially isolated may report poor sleep quality, and thus have diminished restorative processes. Loneliness has also been linked with a schizoid character type in which one may see the world differently and experience social alienation, described as the self in exile.

In children, a lack of social connections is directly linked to several forms of antisocial and self-destructive behavior, most notably hostile and delinquent behavior. In both children and adults, loneliness often has a negative impact on learning and memory. Its disruption of sleep patterns can have a significant impact on the ability to function in everyday life.

Research from a large-scale study published in the journal Psychological Medicine, showed that "lonely millennials are more likely to have mental health problems, be out of work and feel pessimistic about their ability to succeed in life than their peers who feel connected to others, regardless of gender or wealth".

Pain, depression, and fatigue function as a symptom cluster and thus may share common risk factors. Two longitudinal studies with different populations demonstrated that loneliness was a risk factor for the development of the pain, depression, and fatigue symptom cluster over time. These data also highlight the health risks of loneliness; pain, depression, and fatigue often accompany serious illness and place people at risk for poor health and mortality.

Physical health

Chronic loneliness can be a serious, life-threatening health condition. It has been found to be associated with an increased risk of stroke and cardiovascular disease. Loneliness shows an increased incidence of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity.

Loneliness is shown to increase the concentration of cortisol levels in the body. Prolonged, high cortisol levels can cause anxiety, depression, digestive problems, heart disease, sleep problems, and weight gain.

″Loneliness has been associated with impaired cellular immunity as reflected in lower natural killer (NK) cell activity and higher antibody titers to the Epstein Barr Virus and human herpes viruses". Because of impaired cellular immunity, loneliness among young adults shows vaccines, like the flu vaccine, to be less effective. Data from studies on loneliness and HIV positive men suggests loneliness increases disease progression.

Physiological mechanisms link to poor health

There are a number of potential physiological mechanisms linking loneliness to poor health outcomes. In 2005, results from the American Framingham Heart Study demonstrated that lonely men had raised levels of Interleukin 6 (IL-6), a blood chemical linked to heart disease. A 2006 study conducted by the Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience at the University of Chicago found loneliness can add thirty points to a blood pressure reading for adults over the age of fifty. Another finding, from a survey conducted by John Cacioppo from the University of Chicago, is that doctors report providing better medical care to patients who have a strong network of family and friends than they do to patients who are alone. Cacioppo states that loneliness impairs cognition and willpower, alters DNA transcription in immune cells, and leads over time to high blood pressure. Lonelier people are more likely to show evidence of viral reactivation than less lonely people. Lonelier people also have stronger inflammatory responses to acute stress compared with less lonely people; inflammation is a well known risk factor for age-related diseases.

When someone feels left out of a situation, they feel excluded and one possible side effect is for their body temperature to decrease. When people feel excluded blood vessels at the periphery of the body may narrow, preserving core body heat. This class protective mechanism is known as vasoconstriction.

Treatments and prevention

There are many different ways used to treat loneliness, social isolation, and clinical depression. The first step that most doctors recommend to patients is therapy. Therapy is a common and effective way of treating loneliness and is often successful. Short-term therapy, the most common form for lonely or depressed patients, typically occurs over a period of ten to twenty weeks. During therapy, emphasis is put on understanding the cause of the problem, reversing the negative thoughts, feelings, and attitudes resulting from the problem, and exploring ways to help the patient feel connected. Some doctors also recommend group therapy as a means to connect with other sufferers and establish a support system. Doctors also frequently prescribe anti-depressants to patients as a stand-alone treatment, or in conjunction with therapy. It may take several attempts before a suitable anti-depressant medication is found.

Alternative approaches to treating depression are suggested by many doctors. These treatments include exercise, dieting, hypnosis, electro-shock therapy, acupuncture, and herbs, amongst others. Many patients find that participating in these activities fully or partially alleviates symptoms related to depression.

Paro, a robot pet seal classified as a medical device by U.S. regulators

 

Another treatment for both loneliness and depression is pet therapy, or animal-assisted therapy, as it is more formally known. Studies and surveys, as well as anecdotal evidence provided by volunteer and community organizations, indicate that the presence of animal companions such as dogs, cats, rabbits, and guinea pigs can ease feelings of depression and loneliness among some sufferers. Beyond the companionship the animal itself provides there may also be increased opportunities for socializing with other pet owners. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention there are a number of other health benefits associated with pet ownership, including lowered blood pressure and decreased levels of cholesterol and triglycerides.

Nostalgia has also been found to have a restorative effect, counteracting loneliness by increasing perceived social support.

A 1989 study found that the social aspect of religion had a significant negative association with loneliness among elderly people. The effect was more consistent than the effect of social relationships with family and friends, and the subjective concept of religiosity had no significant effect on loneliness.

One study compared the effectiveness of four interventions: improving social skills, enhancing social support, increasing opportunities for social interaction, addressing abnormal social cognition (faulty thoughts and patterns of thoughts). The results of the study indicated that all interventions were effective in reducing loneliness, possibly with the exception of social skill training. Results of the meta-analysis suggest that correcting maladaptive social cognition offers the best chance of reducing loneliness.

Biosphere 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biosphere 2
Exterior of Biosphere 2
General information
Type	Research facility
Location	Oracle, Arizona, U.S.
Address	32540 S Biosphere Rd, Oracle, AZ 85739
Coordinates	32°34′44″N 110°51′02″WCoordinates: 32°34′44″N 110°51′02″W
Elevation	3,820 ft (1,164 m)
Construction started	1987
Completed	1991
Owner	The University of Arizona
Technical details
Floor area	3.14 acres (12,700 m2)
Grounds	40 acres (160,000 m2)
Website
biosphere2.org

Biosphere 2 is an American Earth system science research facility located in Oracle, Arizona. It has been owned by the University of Arizona since 2011. Its mission is to serve as a center for research, outreach, teaching, and lifelong learning about Earth, its living systems, and its place in the universe. It is a 3.14-acre (1.27-hectare) structure originally built to be an artificial, materially closed ecological system, or vivarium. It remains the largest closed system ever created.

Biosphere 2 was originally meant to demonstrate the viability of closed ecological systems to support and maintain human life in outer space. It was designed to explore the web of interactions within life systems in a structure with different areas based on various biological biomes. In addition to the several biomes and living quarters for people, there was an agricultural area and work space to study the interactions between humans, farming, technology and the rest of nature as a new kind of laboratory for the study of the global ecology. Its mission was a two-year closure experiment with a crew of eight humans ("biospherians"). Long-term it was seen as a precursor to gain knowledge about the use of closed biospheres in space colonization. As an experimental ecological facility it allowed the study and manipulation of a mini biospheric system without harming Earth's biosphere. Its seven biome areas were a 1,900-square-meter (20,000 sq ft) rainforest, an 850-square-meter (9,100 sq ft) ocean with a coral reef, a 450-square-meter (4,800 sq ft) mangrove wetlands, a 1,300-square-metre (14,000 sq ft) savannah grassland, a 1,400-square-meter (15,000 sq ft) fog desert, and two anthropogenic biomes: a 2,500-square-meter (27,000 sq ft) agricultural system and a human habitat with living spaces, laboratories and workshops. Below ground was an extensive part of the technical infrastructure. Heating and cooling water circulated through independent piping systems and passive solar input through the glass space frame panels covering most of the facility, and electrical power was supplied into Biosphere 2 from an onsite natural gas energy center.

Biosphere 2 was only used twice for its original intended purposes as a closed-system experiment: once from 1991 to 1993, and the second time from March to September 1994. Both attempts, though heavily publicized, ran into problems including low amounts of food and oxygen, die-offs of many animals and plants included in the experiment (though this was anticipated since the project used a strategy of deliberately "species-packing" anticipating losses as the biomes developed), group dynamic tensions among the resident crew, outside politics and a power struggle over management and direction of the project. Nevertheless, the closure experiments set world records in closed ecological systems, agricultural production, health improvements with the high nutrient and low caloric diet the crew followed, and insights into the self-organization of complex biomic systems and atmospheric dynamics. The second closure experiment achieved total food sufficiency and did not require injection of oxygen.

In June 1994, during the middle of the second experiment, the managing company, Space Biosphere Ventures, was dissolved, and the facility was left in limbo. Columbia University assumed management of the facility in 1995 and used it to run experiments until 2003. It then looked in danger of being demolished to make way for housing and retail stores, but was taken over for research by the University of Arizona in 2007. The University of Arizona took full ownership of the structure in 2011.

Planning and construction

Biosphere 2 was originally constructed between 1987 and 1991 by Space Biosphere Ventures, a joint venture whose principal officers were John P. Allen, inventor and executive chairman; Margaret Augustine, CEO; Marie Harding, vice-president of finance; Abigail Alling, vice president of research; Mark Nelson, director of space and environmental applications, William F. Dempster, director of system engineering, and Norberto Alvarez-Romo, vice president of mission control. Project funding came primarily from the joint venture's financial partner, Ed Bass's Decisions Investment. The project cost US$200 million from 1985 to 2007.

It was named "Biosphere 2" because it was meant to be the second fully self-sufficient biosphere, after the Earth itself.

Location

Biosphere 2 sits on a sprawling 40-acre (16-hectare) science campus that is open to the public

 

Exterior showing parts of the rainforest biome and of the habitat, with the West lung in the background.

 

The glass and spaceframe facility is located in Oracle, Arizona at the base of the Santa Catalina Mountains, about 50 minutes north of Tucson. Its elevation is around 4,000 feet (1,200 m) above sea level.

Engineering

Biosphere 2, view from the thornscrub, a transition zone between Savannah and Desert (foreground) and Ocean (background) sections.

 

The fog desert section of Biosphere in 2005

 

The tropical rainforest biome in February, 2017

 

The above-ground physical structure of Biosphere 2 was made of steel tubing and high-performance glass and steel frames. The frame and glazing materials were designed and made to specification by a firm run by a one-time associate of Buckminster Fuller, Peter Jon Pearce (Pearce Structures, Inc.). The window seals and structures had to be designed to be almost perfectly airtight, such that the air exchange would be extremely low, permitting tracking of subtle changes over time. The patented airtight sealing methods, developed by Pearce and William Dempster, achieved a remarkable leak rate of less than 10% per year. Without such tight closure, the slow decline of oxygen which occurred at a rate of less than 1/4% per month during the first two-year closure experiment might not have been observed.

During the day, the heat from the sun caused the air inside to expand and during the night it cooled and contracted. To avoid having to deal with the huge forces that maintaining a constant volume would create, the structure had large diaphragms kept in domes called "lungs" or variable volume structures.

Since opening a window was not an option, the structure also required a sophisticated system to regulate temperatures within desired parameters, which varied for the different biomic areas. Though cooling was the largest energy need, heating had to be supplied in the winter and closed loop pipes and air handlers were key parts of the energy system. An energy center on site provided electricity and heated and cooled water, employing natural gas and backup generators, ammonia chillers and water cooling towers.

First mission

The first closed mission lasted from September 26, 1991 to September 26, 1993. The crew were: medical doctor and researcher Roy Walford, Jane Poynter, Taber MacCallum, Mark Nelson, Sally Silverstone, Abigail Alling, Mark Van Thillo, and Linda Leigh.

The agricultural system produced 83% of the total diet, which included crops of bananas, papayas, sweet potatoes, beets, peanuts, lablab and cowpea beans, rice, and wheat. No toxic chemicals could be used, since they would impact health and water and nutrients were recycled back into the farm soils. Especially during the first year the eight inhabitants reported continual hunger. Calculations indicated that Biosphere 2's farm was amongst the highest producing in the world "exceeding by more than five times that of the most efficient agrarian communities of Indonesia, southern China, and Bangladesh.”

They consumed the same low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet which Roy Walford had studied in his research on extending lifespan through diet. Medical markers indicated the health of the crew during the two years was excellent. They showed the same improvement in health indices such as lowering of blood cholesterol, blood pressure, enhancement of immune system. They lost an average of 16% of their pre-entry body weight before stabilizing and regaining some weight during their second year. Subsequent studies showed that the biospherians' metabolism became more efficient at extracting nutrients from their food as an adaptation to the low-calorie, high nutrient diet. "The overall health of the biospherians crews inside Biosphere 2 confirm that the original design of the Biosphere 2 technosphere systems did avoid a buildup of toxins, and the bioregenerative technologies and life systems inside Biosphere 2 maintained a healthy environment."

Some of the domestic animals that were included in the agricultural area during the first mission included four African pygmy goats and one billy goat, 35 hens and three roosters (a mix of Indian jungle fowl (Gallus gallus), Japanese silky bantam, and a hybrid of these), two sows and one boar Ossabaw dwarf pigs, as well as tilapia fish grown in a rice and azolla pond system originating millennia ago in China.

A strategy of "species-packing" was practiced to ensure that food webs and ecological function could be maintained if some species did not survive. The fog desert area became more chaparral in character due to condensation from the space frame. The savannah was seasonally active; its biomass was cut and stored by the crew as part of their management of carbon dioxide. Rainforest pioneer species grew rapidly, but trees there and in the savannah suffered from etiolation and weakness caused by lack of stress wood, normally created in response to winds in natural conditions. Corals reproduced in the ocean area, and crew helped maintain ocean system health by hand-harvesting algae from the corals, manipulating calcium carbonate and pH levels to prevent the ocean becoming too acidic, and by installing an improved protein skimmer to supplement the algae turf scrubber system originally installed to remove excess nutrients. The mangrove area developed rapidly but with less understory than a typical wetland possibly because of reduced light levels. Nevertheless, it was judged to be a successful analogue to the Everglades area of Florida where the mangroves and marsh plants were collected.

Biosphere 2 because of its small size and buffers, concentration of organic materials and life, had greater fluctuations and more rapid biogeochemical cycles than are found in Earth's biosphere. Most of the introduced vertebrate species and virtually all of the pollinating insects died, though there was reproduction of plants and animals. Insect pests, like cockroaches, flourished. Many insects had been included in original species mixes in the biomes but a globally invasive tramp ant species, Paratrechina longicornis, unintentionally sealed in, had come to dominate other ant species. The planned ecological succession in the rainforest and strategies to protect the area from harsh incident sunlight and salt aerosols from the ocean worked well, and a surprising amount of the original biodiversity persisted. Biosphere 2 in its early ecological development was likened to an island ecology.

Group dynamics: psychology, conflict, and cooperation

View of part of the crew dining room, serving counter from kitchen and stairway up to an entertainment area.

 

The crew's kitchen as it originally looked during the first mission.

 

Much of the evidence for isolated human groups comes from psychological studies of scientists overwintering in Antarctic research stations. The study of this phenomenon is "confined environment psychology", and according to Jane Poynter it was known to be a challenge and often crews split into factions.

Before the first closure mission was half over, the group had split into two factions and, according to Poynter, people who had been intimate friends had become implacable enemies, barely on speaking terms. Others point out that the crew continued to work together as a team to achieve the experiment's goals, mindful that any action that harmed Biosphere 2 might imperil their own health. This is in contrast to other expeditions where internal frictions can lead to unconscious sabotage of each other and the overall mission. All of the crew felt a very strong and visceral bond with their living world. They kept air and water quality, atmospheric dynamics and health of the life systems constantly in their attention in a very visceral and profound way. This intimate “metabolic connection” enabled the crew to discern and respond to even subtle changes in the living systems. (Alling et al., 2002; Alling and Nelson, 1993). "Appreciation of the value of biosphere interconnectedness and interdependency was appreciated as both an everyday beauty and a challenging reality", Walford later acknowledged "I don't like some of them, but we were a hell of a team. That was the nature of the factionalism... but despite that, we ran the damn thing and we cooperated totally".

The factions inside the bubble formed from a rift and power struggle between the joint venture partners on how the science should proceed, as biospherics or as specialist ecosystem studies (perceived as reductionist). The faction that included Poynter felt strongly that increasing research should be prioritized over degree of closure. The other faction backed project management and the overall mission objectives. On February 14, a portion of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) resigned. Time Magazine wrote: "Now, the veneer of credibility, already bruised by allegations of tamper-prone data, secret food caches and smuggled supplies, has cracked ... the two-year experiment in self-sufficiency is starting to look less like science and more like a $150 million stunt". In fact, the SAC was dissolved because it had deviated from its mandate to review and improve scientific research and became involved in advocating management changes. A majority of the SAC members chose to remain as consultants to Biosphere 2. The SAC's recommendations in their report were implemented including a new Director of Research [Dr. Jack Corliss], allowing import/export of scientific samples and equipment through the facility airlocks to increase research and decrease crew labor, and to generate a formal research program. Some sixty-four projects were included in the research program that Walford and Alling spearheaded developing.

Undoubtedly the lack of oxygen and the calorie-restricted, nutrient-dense diet contributed to low morale. The Alling faction feared that the Poynter group were prepared to go so far as to import food, if it meant making them fitter to carry out research projects. They considered that would be a project failure by definition. 

In November 1992, the hungry Biospherians began eating seed stocks that had not been grown inside the Biosphere 2. Poynter made Chris Helms, PR Director for the enterprise, aware of this. She was promptly dismissed by Margret Augustine, CEO of Space Biospheres Ventures, and told to come out of the biosphere. This order was, however, never carried out. Poynter writes that she simply decided to stay put, correctly reasoning that the order could not be enforced without effectively terminating the closure. 

Isolated groups tend to attach greater significance to group dynamic and personal emotional fluctuations common in all groups. Some reports from polar station crews exaggerated psychological problems. So, although some of the first closure team thought they were depressed, psychological examination of the biospherians showed no depression and fit the explorer/adventurer profile, with both women and men testing very similar to astronauts. One of the psychologists noted, "If I was lost in the Amazon and was looking for a guide to get out, and to survive with, then [the biospherian crew] would be top choices."

Challenges

Among the problems and miscalculations encountered in the first mission were unanticipated condensation making the "desert" too wet, population explosions of greenhouse ants and cockroaches, morning glories overgrowing the rainforest area, blocking out other plants and less sunlight (40-50% of outside light) entering the facility than originally anticipated. Biospherians intervened to control invasive plants when needed to preserve biodiversity, functioning as "keystone predators". In addition, construction itself was a challenge; for example, it was difficult to manipulate the bodies of water to have waves and tidal changes. Engineers came up with innovative solutions to supplement natural functions the Earth's biosphere normally performs, e.g. vacuum pumps to create gentle waves in the ocean without endangering marine biota, sophisticated heating and cooling systems. All the technology was selected to minimize outgassing and discharge of harmful substances which might damage Biosphere 2's life.

There was controversy when the public learned that the project had allowed an injured member to leave and return, carrying new material inside. The team claimed the only new supplies brought in were plastic bags, but others accused them of bringing food and other items. More criticism was raised when it was learned that, likewise, the project injected oxygen in January 1993 to make up for a failure in the balance of the system that resulted in the amount of oxygen steadily declining. Some thought that these criticisms ignored that Biosphere 2 was an experiment where the unexpected would occur, adding to knowledge of how complex ecologies develop and interact, not a demonstration where everything was known in advance. H.T. Odum noted: “The management process during 1992-1993 using data to develop theory, test it with simulation, and apply corrective actions was in the best scientific tradition. Yet some journalists crucified the management in the public press, treating the project as if it was an Olympic contest to see how much could be done without opening the doors”.

The oxygen inside the facility, which began at 20.9%, fell at a steady pace and after 16 months was down to 14.5%. This is equivalent to the oxygen availability at an elevation of 4,080 meters (13,400 ft). Since some biospherians were starting to have symptoms like sleep apnea and fatigue, Walford and the medical team decided to boost oxygen with injections in January and August 1993. The oxygen decline and minimal response of the crew indicated that changes in air pressure are what trigger human adaptation responses. These studies enhanced the biomedical research program.

Managing CO₂ levels was a particular challenge, and a source of controversy regarding the Biosphere 2 project's alleged misrepresentation to the public. Daily fluctuation of carbon dioxide dynamics was typically 600 ppm because of the strong drawdown during sunlight hours by plant photosynthesis, followed by a similar rise during the nighttime when system respiration dominated. As expected, there was also a strong seasonal signature to CO₂ levels, with wintertime levels as high as 4,000-4,500 ppm and summertime levels near 1,000 ppm. The crew worked to manage the CO₂ by occasionally turning on a CO₂ scrubber, activating and de-activating the desert and savannah through control of irrigation water, cutting and storing biomass to sequester carbon, and utilizing all potential planting areas with fast-growing species to increase system photosynthesis. In November 1991, investigative reporting in the Village Voice alleged that the crew had secretly installed the CO₂ scrubber device, and claimed that this violated Biosphere 2's advertised goal of recycling all materials naturally. Others pointed out there was nothing secret about the carbon dioxide device and it constituted another technical system augmenting ecological processes. The carbon precipitator could reverse the chemical reactions and thus release the stored carbon dioxide in later years when the facility might need additional carbon.

Many suspected the drop in oxygen was due to microbes in the soil. The soils were selected to have enough carbon to provide for the plants of the ecosystems to grow from infancy to maturity, a plant mass increase of perhaps 20 tons (18,000 kg). The release rate of that soil carbon as carbon dioxide by respiration of soil microbes was an unknown that the Biosphere 2 experiment was designed to reveal. Subsequent research showed that Biosphere 2's farm soils had reached a more stable ratio of carbon and nitrogen, lowering the rate of CO₂ release, by 1998.

The respiration rate was faster than the photosynthesis (possibly in part due to relatively low light penetration through the glazed structure and the fact that Biosphere 2 started with a small but rapidly increasing plant biomass) resulting in a slow decrease of oxygen. A mystery accompanied the oxygen decline: the corresponding increase in carbon dioxide did not appear. This concealed the underlying process until an investigation by Jeff Severinghaus and Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory using isotopic analysis showed that carbon dioxide was reacting with exposed concrete inside Biosphere 2 to form calcium carbonate, thereby sequestering both carbon and oxygen.

Second mission

During the transition period between missions, extensive research and system improvements had been undertaken. Concrete was sealed to prevent uptake of carbon dioxide. The second mission began on March 6, 1994, with an announced run of ten months. The crew was Norberto Alvarez-Romo (Capt.), John Druitt, Matt Finn, Pascale Maslin, Charlotte Godfrey, Rodrigo Romo and Tilak Mahato. The second crew achieved complete sufficiency in food production.

On April 1, 1994 a severe dispute within the management team led to the ousting of the on-site management by federal marshals serving a restraining order, and financier Ed Bass hired Stephen Bannon, manager of the Bannon & Co. investment banking team from Beverly Hills, California, to run Space Biospheres Ventures. Some biospherians and staff were concerned about Bannon, who had previously investigated cost overruns at the site. Two former Biosphere 2 crew members flew back to Arizona to protest the hire and broke into the compound to warn current crew members that Bannon and the new management would jeopardize their safety.

At 3 am on April 5, 1994, Abigail Alling and Mark Van Thillo, members of the first crew, allegedly vandalized the project from outside, opening one double-airlock door and three single door emergency exits, leaving them open for approximately fifteen minutes. Five panes of glass were also broken. Alling later told the Chicago Tribune that she "considered the Biosphere to be in an emergency state... In no way was it sabotage. It was my responsibility." About 10% of the biosphere's air was exchanged with the outside during this time, according to systems analyst Donella Meadows, who received a communication from Ms. Alling in which she explained that she and Van Thillo judged it their ethical duty to give those inside the choice of continuing with the drastically changed human experiment or leaving, as they didn't know what the crew had been told of the new situation. “On April 1, 1994, at approximately 10 AM … limousines arrived on the biosphere site … with two investment bankers hired by Mr. Bass … They arrived with a temporary restraining order to take over direct control of the project … With them were 6-8 police officers hired by the Bass organization … They immediately changed locks on the offices … All communication systems were changed (telephone and access codes), and [we] were prevented from receiving any data regarding safety, operations, and research of Biosphere 2.” Alling emphasized several times in her letter that the “bankers” who suddenly took over “knew nothing technically or scientifically, and little about the biospherian crew.”

Four days later, the captain Norberto Alvarez-Romo (by then married to Biosphere 2 chief executive Margaret Augustine) precipitously left the Biosphere for a "family emergency" after his wife's suspension. He was replaced by Bernd Zabel, who had been nominated as captain of the first mission but who was replaced at the last minute. Two months later, Matt Smith replaced Matt Finn.

The ownership and management company Space Biospheres Ventures was officially dissolved on June 1, 1994. This left the scientific and business management of the mission to the interim turnaround team, who had been contracted by the financial partner, Decisions Investment Co.

Mission 2 was ended prematurely on September 6, 1994. No further total system science has emerged from Biosphere 2 as the facility was changed by Columbia University from a closed ecological system to a "flow-through" system where CO₂ could be manipulated at desired levels.

Steve Bannon left Biosphere 2 after two years, but his departure was marked by a civil lawsuit filed against Space Biosphere Ventures by the former crew members who had broken in. During a 1996 trial, Bannon testified that he had called one of the plaintiffs, Abigail Alling, a "self-centered, deluded young woman" and a "bimbo." He also testified that when the woman submitted a five-page complaint outlining safety problems at the site, he promised to shove the complaint "down her fucking throat." Bannon attributed this to "hard feelings and broken dreams." At the end of the trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs and ordered Space Biosphere Ventures to pay them $600,000, but also ordered the plaintiffs to pay the company $40,089 for the damage they had caused. Some have observed that Bannon orchestrated the hostile take-over and destruction of Biosphere 2 as a revolutionary total system global ecology laboratory, not because of any interest in ecological science.

Science

A special issue of the Ecological Engineering journal edited by Marino and Howard T. Odum (1999), published as "Biosphere 2: Research Past and Present" (Elsevier, 1999) represents the most comprehensive assemblage of collected papers and findings from Biosphere 2. The papers range from calibrated models that describe the system metabolism, hydrologic balance, and heat and humidity, to papers that describe rainforest, mangrove, ocean, and agronomic system development in this carbon dioxide-rich environment. Though several dissertations and many scientific papers used data from the early closure experiments at Biosphere 2, much of the original data has never been analyzed and is unavailable or lost, perhaps due to scientific politics and in-fighting.

Some of the controversy at Biosphere 2 stemmed from the long-standing division in science between analytic, reductionist science and integrative, holistic science. 

Rebecca Reider expanded her history of science thesis at Harvard into a book on Biosphere 2. She noted that because Biosphere 2's creators were perceived as outsiders to academic science, the project was scrutinized but sometimes poorly understood in the media. She noted that Biosphere 2 broke a number of unspoken taboos: “’Science’ could be performed only by official scientists, only the right high priests could interpret nature for everyone else….’Science’ was separate from art (and the thinking mind was separate from the emotional heart)…’Science’ required some neat intellectual boundary between humans and nature; it did not necessarily involve humans learning to live with the world around them. Finally, ‘science’ must follow a specific method: think up a hypothesis, test it and get some numbers to prove you were right”. After Columbia University assumed management, the scrutiny ceased because it was assumed they were "proper" scientists.

The dichotomy is a false one as there are many valid approaches to science. John Allen, the inventor of Biosphere 2, wrote: “Four basic ways uneasily co-exist in science to deal with understanding complex systems: [1] prolonged naturalist observation, description of observed regularities and classification of parts… [2] analyzing component parts of the object of study, formulating restricted hypotheses, and then, holding all else other than the chosen part as constant as possible, measure changes produced by measured impacts...[3] accept complexity as an irreducible element, and then to search for the organized structure that enables us to examine the entity as a whole, to ascertain its specific laws or regularities…[4] Put into an operating model a synthesis of these three approaches, together with test principles of engineering, to test the validity of the existent thinking’s predictive powers, and to provide a fecund base for new observations. This full interplay of observation, analysis and structuring to make a working apparatus in order to test and extend our knowledge of biospherics is the approach we used to create Biosphere 2. This interplay of all four scientific approaches is required to study Earth’s biosphere, the most complex entity yet encountered.”

Praise and criticism

One view of Biosphere 2 was that it was "the most exciting scientific project to be undertaken in the U.S. since President John F. Kennedy launched us toward the moon". Others called it "New Age drivel masquerading as science". John Allen and Roy Walford did have mainstream credentials. John Allen held a degree in Metallurgical-Mining Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School. Roy Walford received his doctorate of medicine from the University of Chicago and taught at UCLA as a Professor of Pathology for 35 years. Mark Nelson obtained his Ph.D. in 1998 under Professor H.T. Odum in ecological engineering further developing the constructed wetlands used to treat and recycle sewage in Biosphere 2, to coral reef protection along the Yucatán coast where the corals were collected. Linda Leigh obtained her PhD with a dissertation on biodiversity and the Biosphere 2 rainforest working with Odum. Abigail Alling, Mark van Thillo and Sally Silverstone helped start the Biosphere Foundation where they worked on coral reef and marine conservation and sustainable agricultural systems. Jane Poynter and Taber MacCallum co-founded Paragon Space Development Corporation which has studied the first mini-closed system and the first full animal life cycle in space and assisted in setting world records in high altitude descents.

Questioning the credentials of the participants (despite the contribution in the preparation phase of Biosphere 2 of worldwide top-level scientists and among others the Russian Academy of Sciences), Marc Cooper wrote that "the group that built, conceived, and directs the Biosphere project is not a group of high-tech researchers on the cutting edge of science but a clique of recycled theater performers that evolved out of an authoritarian—and decidedly non-scientific—personality cult". He was referring to the Synergia Ranch in New Mexico, where indeed many of the Biospherians did practice theater under John Allen's leadership, and began to develop the ideas behind Biosphere 2. They also founded the Institute of Ecotechnics and began innovative field projects in challenging biomes to advance the healthy integration of human technologies and the environment where many of the biospherian candidates gained experience in operating real-time complex projects.

One of their own scientific consultants was earlier critical. Dr. Ghillean Prance, director of the Royal Botanical Gardens in Kew, designed the rainforest biome inside the Biosphere. Although he later changed his opinion, acknowledging the unique scope of this experiment and contributed to its success as a consultant, in a 1983 interview (8 years before the start of the experiment), Prance said, "I was attracted to the Institute of Ecotechnics because funds for research were being cut and the institute seemed to have a lot of money which it was willing to spend freely. Along with others, I was ill-used. Their interest in science is not genuine. They seem to have some sort of secret agenda, they seem to be guided by some sort of religious or philosophical system." Prance went on in the 1991 newspaper interview to say "they are visionaries.,.And maybe to fulfill their vision they have become somewhat cultlike. But they are not a cult, per se....I am interested in ecological restoration systems. And I think all sorts of scientific things can come of this experiment, far beyond the space goal... When they came to me with this new project, they seemed so well organized, so inspired, I simply decided to forget the past. You shouldn't hold their past against them." 

Poynter in her memoir rebuts the critique that because some of the creative team of Biosphere 2 weren't highly credentialed scientists, that that ad hominem argument invalidates the results of the endeavor. "“Some reporters hurled accusations that we were unscientific. Apparently because many of the SBV managers were not themselves degreed scientists, this called into question the entire validity of the project, even though some of the world’s best scientists were working vigorously on the project’s design and operation. The critique was not fair. Since leaving Biosphere 2, I have run a small business for ten years that sent experiments on the shuttle and to the space station, and is designing life support systems for the replacement shuttle and future moon base. I do not have a degree, not even an MBA from Harvard, as John [Allen] had. I hire scientists and top engineers. Our company’s credibility is not called into question because of my credentials: we are judged on the quality of our work”. H.T. Odum noted that mavericks, outsiders have often contributed to the development of science: “The original management of Biosphere 2 was regarded by many scientists as untrained for lack of scientific degrees, even though they had engaged in a preparatory study program for a decade, interacting with the international community of scientists including the Russians involved with closed systems. The history of science has many examples where people of atypical background open science in new directions, in this case implementing mesocosm organization and ecological engineering with fresh hypotheses”.

The Biosphere 2 Science Advisory Committee, chaired by Tom Lovejoy of the Smithsonian Institution, in its report of August 1992 reported: "The committee is in agreement that the conception and construction of Biosphere 2 were acts of vision and courage. The scale of Biosphere 2 is unique and Biosphere 2 is already providing unexpected scientific results not possible through other means (notably the documented, unexpected decline in atmospheric oxygen levels.) Biosphere 2 will make important scientific contributions in the fields of biogeochemical cycling, the ecology of closed ecological systems, and restoration ecology." Columbia University assembled outside scientists to evaluate the potential of the facility after they took over management, and concluded the following: "A group of world-class scientists got together and decided the Biosphere 2 facility is an exceptional laboratory for addressing critical questions relative to the future of Earth and its environment."

Columbia University

In December 1995 the Biosphere 2 owners transferred management to Columbia University of New York City which embarked on a successful eight-year run at the Biosphere 2 campus. Columbia ran Biosphere 2 as a research site and campus until 2003. Subsequently, management reverted to the owners. 

In 1996, Columbia University changed the virtually airtight, materially closed structure designed for closed system research, to a "flow-through" system, and halted closed system research. They manipulated carbon dioxide levels for global warming research, and injected desired amounts of carbon dioxide, venting as needed. During Columbia's tenure, students from Columbia and other colleges and universities would often spend one semester at the site.

Important research during Columbia's tenure demonstrated the devastating impacts on coral reefs from elevated atmospheric CO2 and acidification that will result from continued global climate change. Frank Press, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, described these interactions between atmosphere and ocean, taking advantage of the highly controllable ocean mesocosm of Biosphere 2, as the “first unequivocal experimental confirmation of the human impact on the planet”.

Studies in Biosphere 2’s terrestrial biomes showed that a saturation point was reached with elevated CO2 beyond which they are unable to uptake more. The studies' authors noted that the striking differences between the Biosphere 2 rainforest and desert biomes in their whole system responses “illustrates the importance of large-scale experimental research in the study of complex global change issues".

Site sold

In January 2005, Decisions Investments Corporation, owner of Biosphere 2, announced that the project's 1,600-acre (650 ha) campus was for sale. They preferred a research use to be found for the complex but were not excluding buyers with different intentions, such as big universities, churches, resorts, and spas. In June 2007 the site was sold for $50 million to CDO Ranching & Development, L.P. 1,500 houses and a resort hotel were planned, but the main structure was still to be available for research and educational use.

Acquisition by University of Arizona

On June 26, 2007, the University of Arizona announced it would take over research at the Biosphere 2. The announcement ended fears that the structure would be demolished. University officials said private gifts and grants enabled them to cover research and operating costs for three years with the possibility of extending funding for ten years. It was extended for ten years, and is now engaged in research projects including research into the terrestrial water cycle and how it relates to ecology, atmospheric science, soil geochemistry, and climate change. In June 2011, the university announced that it would assume full ownership of Biosphere 2, effective July 1.

Biosphere 2, 2015

CDO Ranching & Development donated the land, Biosphere buildings and several other support and administrative buildings. The Philecology Foundation (a nonprofit research foundation founded by Ed Bass) pledged US$20 million for the ongoing science and operations.

Current research

There are many small-scale research projects at Biosphere 2, as well as several large-scale research projects including:

• the Landscape Evolution Observatory (LEO), a project which uses 1800 sensors to monitor millions of pounds of abiotic volcanic rock to track how this nonliving soil slowly develops over several years into a rich soil which is able to support microbial and vascular plant life.
• the Lunar Greenhouse, a second prototype of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center which seeks to understand how to grow vegetables on Mars by developing a bioregenerative life support system which recycles and purifies water through plant transpiration.
• a vertical farming project to be built in Biosphere 2's west lung, in collaboration with the private company Civic Farms, in an effort to develop an indoor plant growth cycle with LED lamps configured to specific wavelengths aimed at the goal of increasing water efficiency, producing zero farm runoff, with no pests or pesticides, and zero effect from external weather conditions.

Psychological and sociological effects of spaceflight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crew members (STS-131) on the International Space Station (14 April 2012).

 

Psychological and sociological effects of space flight are important to understanding how to successfully achieve the goals of long-duration expeditionary missions. Although robotic spacecraft have landed on Mars, plans have also been discussed for a human expedition, perhaps in the 2030s, or as early as 2021 for a return mission, or even in 2018 for a 501-day flyby mission for a crew of two with no landing on Mars.

A Mars return expedition may last two to three years and may involve a crew of four to seven people, although shorter flyby missions of approximately one and half years with only two people have been proposed, as well as one-way missions that include landing on Mars with no return trip planned. Although there are a number of technological and physiological issues involved with such a mission that remain to be worked out, there are also a number of behavioral issues affecting the crew that are being addressed before launching such missions. In preparing for such an expedition, important psychological, interpersonal and psychiatric issues occurring in human spaceflight missions are under study by national space agencies and others. 

In October 2015, the NASA Office of Inspector General issued a health hazards report related to human spaceflight, including a human mission to Mars.

Psychosocial issues on-orbit

Researchers have conducted two NASA-funded international studies of psychological and interpersonal issues during on-orbit missions to the Mir and the International Space Station. Both crew members and mission control personnel were studied. The Mir sample involved 13 astronauts and cosmonauts and 58 American and Russian mission control personnel. The corresponding numbers in the ISS study were 17 space travelers and 128 people on Earth. Subjects completed a weekly questionnaire that included items from a number of valid and reliable measures that assessed mood and group dynamics. Both studies had similar findings. There was significant evidence for the displacement of tension and negative emotions from the crew members to mission control personnel. The support role of the commander was significantly and positively related to group cohesion among crew members, and both the task and support roles of the team leader were significantly related to cohesion among people in mission control. Crew members scored higher in cultural sophistication than mission control personnel. Russians reported greater language flexibility than Americans. Americans scored higher on a measure of work pressure than Russians, but Russians reported higher levels of tension on the ISS than Americans. There were no significant changes in levels of emotion and group interpersonal climate over time. Specifically, there was no evidence for a general worsening of mood and cohesion after the halfway point of the missions, an occurrence some have called the 3rd quarter phenomenon.

Much has been learned from experiences on the International Space Station about important psychological, interpersonal and psychiatric issues that affect people working on-orbit. This information should be incorporated in the planning for future expeditionary missions to a near-Earth asteroid or to Mars.

 

Other psychosocial studies involving astronauts and cosmonauts have been conducted. In one, an analysis of speech patterns as well as subjective attitudes and personal values were measured in both on-orbit space crews and people working in space analog environments. The researchers found that, over time, these isolated groups showed decreases in the scope and content of their communications and a filtering in what they said to outside personnel, which was termed psychological closing. Crew members interacted less with some mission control personnel than others, perceiving them as opponents. This tendency of some crew members to become more egocentric was called autonomization. They also found that crew members became more cohesive by spending time together (for example, joint birthday celebrations), and that the presence of subgroups and outliers (e.g., scapegoats) negatively affected group cohesion. In a study of 12 ISS cosmonauts, researchers reported that personal values generally remained stable, with those related to the fulfillment of professional activities and good social relationships being rated most highly.

Another study examined potentially disruptive cultural issues affecting space missions in a survey of 75 astronauts and cosmonauts and 106 mission control personnel. The subjects rated coordination difficulties between the different space organizations involved with the missions as the biggest problem. Other problems included communication misunderstandings and differences in work management styles.

In a study of 11 cosmonauts regarding their opinions of possible psychological and interpersonal problems that might occur during a Mars expedition, researchers found several factors to be rated highly: isolation and monotony, distance-related communication delays with the Earth, leadership issues, differences in space agency management styles, and cultural misunderstandings within international crews.

In a survey of 576 employees of the European Space Agency (ESA), a link was found between cultural diversity and the ability of people to interact with one another. Especially important were factors related to leadership and decision-making.

Another study looked at content analysis of personal journals from ten ISS astronauts that were oriented around a number of issues that had behavioral implications. Findings included that 88% of the entries dealt with the following categories: Work, Outside Communications, Adjustment, Group Interaction, Recreation/Leisure, Equipment, Events, Organization/Management, Sleep, and Food. In general, the crew members reported that their life in space was not as difficult as they expected prior to launch, despite a 20% increase in interpersonal problems during the second half of the missions. It was recommended that future crew members be allowed to control their individual schedules as much as possible.

On-orbit and post-spaceflight psychiatric issues

A number of psychiatric problems have been reported during on-orbit space missions. Most common are adjustment reactions to the novelty of being in space, with symptoms generally including transient anxiety or depression. Psychosomatic reactions also have occurred, where anxiety and other emotional states are experienced physically as somatic symptoms. Problems related to major mood and thought disorders (e.g., manic-depression, schizophrenia) have not been reported during space missions. This likely is due to the fact that crew members have been screened psychiatrically for constitutional predispositions to these conditions before launch, so the likelihood of these illnesses developing on-orbit is low. 

Post-mission personality changes and emotional problems have affected some returning space travelers. These have included anxiety, depression, alcohol abuse, and marital readjustment difficulties that in some cases have necessitated the use of psychotherapy and psychoactive medications. Some astronauts have had difficulties adjusting to the resultant fame and media demands that followed their missions, and similar problems are likely to occur in the future following high-profile expeditions, such as a trip to Mars.

Asthenization, a syndrome that includes fatigue, irritability, emotional lability, attention and concentration difficulties, and appetite and sleep problems, has been reported to commonly occur in cosmonauts by Russian flight surgeons. It has been observed to evolve in clearly defined stages. It is conceptualized as an adjustment reaction to being in space that is different from neurasthenia, a related neurotic condition seen on Earth.

The validity of asthenization has been questioned by some in the West, in part because classical neurasthenia is not currently recognized in the American psychiatric nomenclature, whereas the illness is accepted in Russia and China. Retrospective analysis of the data from the Soviet Space Biology and Medicine III Mir Space Station study has shown that the findings did not support the presence of the asthenization syndrome when crew member on-orbit scores were compared with those from a prototype of asthenization developed by Russian space experts.

Positive outcomes

Isolated and confined environments may also produce positive experiences. A survey of 39 astronauts and cosmonauts found that all of the respondents reported positive changes as a result of flying in space. One particular measure stood out: Perceptions of Earth in general were highly positive, while gaining a stronger appreciation of the Earth’s beauty had the highest mean change score.

Since the early 1990s, research began on the salutogenic (or growth-enhancing) aspects of space travel. One study analyzed the published memoirs of 125 space travelers. After returning from space, the subjects reported higher levels on categories of Universalism (i.e., greater appreciation for other people and nature), Spirituality, and Power. Russian space travelers scored higher in Achievement and Universalism and lower in Enjoyment than Americans. Overall, these results suggest that traveling in space is a positive and growth-enhancing experience for many of its individual participants.

From low-Earth orbit to expeditions across the inner Solar System

Research to date into human psychological and sociological effects based on on-orbit near-Earth experiences may have limited generalizability to a long-distance, multi-year space expedition, such as a mission to a near-Earth asteroid (which currently is being considered by NASA) or to Mars. In the case of Mars, new stressors will be introduced due to the great distances involved in journeying to the Red Planet. For example, the crew members will be relatively autonomous from terrestrial mission control and will need to plan their work and deal with problems on their own. They are expected to experience significant isolation as the Earth becomes an insignificant bluish-green dot in the heavens, the so-called Earth-out-of-view phenomenon. From the surface of Mars, there will be two-way communication delays with family and friends back home of up to 44 minutes, as well as low-bandwidth communication channels, adding to the sense of isolation.

The Mars 500 Program

From June 2010 to November 2011, a unique ground-based space analog study took place that was called the Mars 500 Program. Mars 500 was designed to simulate a 520-day round-trip expedition to Mars, including periods of time where the crew functioned under high autonomy conditions and experienced communication delays with outside monitoring personnel in mission control. Six men were confined in a simulator that was located at the Institute for Biomedical Problems in Moscow. The lower floor consisted of living and laboratory modules for the international crew, and the upper floor contained a mock-up of the Mars surface on which the crew conducted simulated geological and other planetary activities.

During a 105-day pilot study in 2009 that preceded this mission, the mood and group interactions of a six-man Russian-European crew, as well as the relationships of this crew with outside mission control personnel, were studied. The study found that high work autonomy (where the crew members planned their own schedules) was well received by the crews, mission goals were accomplished, and there were no adverse effects, which echoed positive autonomy findings in other space analog settings. During the high autonomy period, crew member mood and self-direction were reported as being improved, but mission control personnel reported more anxiety and work role confusion. Despite scoring lower in work pressure overall, the Russian crew members reported a greater rise in work pressure from low to high autonomy than the European participants.

Several psychosocial studies were conducted during the actual 520-day mission. There were changes in crew member time perception, evidence for the displacement of crew tension to mission control, and decreases in crew member needs and requests during high autonomy, which suggested that they had adapted to this condition. The crew exhibited increased homogeneity in values and more reluctance to express negative interpersonal feelings over time, which suggested a tendency toward "groupthink". Additionally, the crew members experienced increased feelings of loneliness and perceived lower support from colleagues over time, which had a negative effect on cognitive adaptation. A number of individual differences in terms of sleep pattern, mood, and conflicts with mission control were found and reported using techniques such as wrist actigraphy, the psychomotor vigilance test, and various subjective measures. A general decrease in group collective time from the outbound phase to the return phase of the simulated flight to Mars was identified. This was accomplished by the evaluation of fixed video recordings of crew behavior during breakfasts through variations in personal actions, visual interactions, and facial expressions.

Psychosocial and psychiatric issues during an expedition to Mars

There are a number of psychosocial and psychiatric issues that may affect crew members during an expeditionary mission to Mars. In terms of selection, only a subset of all astronaut candidates will be willing to be away from family and friends for the two- to three-year mission, so the pool of possible crew members will be restricted and possibly skewed psychologically in ways that cannot be foreseen. Little is known about the physical and psychological effect of long-duration microgravity and the high radiation that occurs in deep space. In addition, on Mars the crew members will be subjected to a gravity field that is only 38 percent of Earth gravity, and the effect of this situation on their physical and emotional well-being is unknown. Given the long distances involved, the crew must function autonomously and develop their own work schedules and solve operational emergencies themselves. They must also be able to deal with medical and psychiatric emergencies, such as physical trauma due to accidents as well as suicidal or psychotic thinking due to stress and depression. Basic life support and staples such as water and fuel will need to be provided from resources on Mars and its atmosphere. There will be a great deal of leisure time (especially during the outbound and return phases of the mission), and occupying it meaningfully and flexibly may be a challenge.

Furthermore, Kanas points out that during on-orbit or lunar missions a number of interventions have been implemented successfully to support crew member psychological well-being. These have included family conferences in real time (i.e., with no appreciable delays), frequent consultations with mission control, and the sending of gifts and favorite foods on resupply ships to enhance morale. Such actions have helped to provide stimulation and counter the effects of isolation, loneliness, asthenization, and limited social contact. But with the delays in crew-ground communication and the inability to send needed resupplies in a timely manner due to the vast distances between the habitats on Mars and Earth, the currently used Earth-based support strategies will be seriously constrained, and new strategies will be needed. Finally, since gazing at the Earth’s beauty has been rated as the major positive factor of being in space, the experience of seeing the Earth as an insignificant dot in the heavens may enhance the sense of isolation and produce increased feelings of homesickness, depression and irritability. This may be ameliorated by having a telescope on board with which to view the Earth, thus helping the crew feel more connected with home.