Difference between revisions of "Team:UNIK Copenhagen/Ethics"

Line 51: Line 51:
 
<h3>Who should own Mars?</h3>
 
<h3>Who should own Mars?</h3>
 
<p>Space exploration has a number of geopolitical implications as well, for example over the ownership of planets. Should ownership of a planet be determined on a “first come first served” basis or should a piece of Mars be given to each country on earth? Perhaps they are both an old fashioned way of thinking and Mars should be public property, not determined by any nationalistic sentiment. However which organisation should then be in charge of implementing rules and laws on Mars? Should it be the UN, the astronomical society or something else entirely? Such questions may sound unimportant now but the time is fast approaching when they will be critical in determining our future as a two planet species.</p>
 
<p>Space exploration has a number of geopolitical implications as well, for example over the ownership of planets. Should ownership of a planet be determined on a “first come first served” basis or should a piece of Mars be given to each country on earth? Perhaps they are both an old fashioned way of thinking and Mars should be public property, not determined by any nationalistic sentiment. However which organisation should then be in charge of implementing rules and laws on Mars? Should it be the UN, the astronomical society or something else entirely? Such questions may sound unimportant now but the time is fast approaching when they will be critical in determining our future as a two planet species.</p>
 +
 +
<br>
  
  
Line 61: Line 63:
  
 
<p>
 
<p>
−
Additionally, the United Nations has established a comprehensive agreement on Outer Space, called the Outer Space Treaty.  
+
Additionally, the United Nations has established a comprehensive agreement on Outer Space, called the Outer Space Treaty. These laws do not automatically preclude the use of organisms for terraforming Mars, but do ensure mechanisms for collaboration and mutually beneficial development.  
−
 
+
−
Article I:
+
−
'The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind. Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies. There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.'
+
−
<br>
+
−
These laws do not automatically preclude the use of organisms for terraforming Mars, but do ensure mechanisms for collaboration and mutually beneficial development.  
+
 
<br>
 
<br>
  

Revision as of 15:03, 13 September 2015


Thoughts on Bioethics and Mars


Our project proposes bringing moss to Mars in order to terraform the Martian environment and create components needed to create a sustainable environment on Mars. However, we also have to consider the possibility that our moss could contaminate the Martian environment and perhaps destroy our search for viable biological specimens on Mars. Another question that we have asked is: Should Mars be terraformed? Perhaps it should be kept as a national park - a unique red planet that should not be terraformed to be a second earth. Other ethical issues regards the astronauts and how we should address and test medical implications of space travelling.


Planetary protection treaty

The planetary protection treaty was established in 1956 by the Committee on Space Research. The aim of the treaty was to prevent forward and back contamination during a space mission. Forward contamination is the contamination of a celestial object by organisms from earth that may have contaminated the spacecraft on the way to the object. The slightly rarer case would be back contamination, which is the risk of bringing unknown lifeforms - if they do exist - back to earth. Both have quite alarming ethical implications.



Who should own Mars?

Space exploration has a number of geopolitical implications as well, for example over the ownership of planets. Should ownership of a planet be determined on a “first come first served” basis or should a piece of Mars be given to each country on earth? Perhaps they are both an old fashioned way of thinking and Mars should be public property, not determined by any nationalistic sentiment. However which organisation should then be in charge of implementing rules and laws on Mars? Should it be the UN, the astronomical society or something else entirely? Such questions may sound unimportant now but the time is fast approaching when they will be critical in determining our future as a two planet species.


Common heritage of mankind is a principle of international law which holds that defined territorial areas and elements of humanity's common heritage (cultural and natural) should be held in trust for future generations and be protected from exploitation by individual nation states or corporations.

Antarctica is one example of a place that didn't have any indigenous population, with groups of national explorers arriving in modern times. The purpose of the Antarctic treaty is to ensure: "in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord."

Additionally, the United Nations has established a comprehensive agreement on Outer Space, called the Outer Space Treaty. These laws do not automatically preclude the use of organisms for terraforming Mars, but do ensure mechanisms for collaboration and mutually beneficial development.






Medical complications

One of the ethical issues regarding space exploration that ties in with our project is medical research in outer space. Since we have little information about about the metabolic processes of the human body at zero gravity, we do not yet know fully how pharmaceuticals affect the human body in outer space. This means that pills that work well on earth may cause major problems for astronauts taking them under different conditions. The ethical question is whether we should use the few astronauts in space, for example the 6 astronauts at the international space station as “guinea pigs” in order to test the effect of different drugs at zero gravity. This “live” medical research could pose a number of problems. Is it ethical to give perfectly healthy astronauts medicine that for diseases that they do not have, and that could potentially have fatal side effects?

Then there is also the ethical question of the type of drugs that should be taken aboard the spaceship, or in our case: what kind of drugs should be given priority to be grown by moss? For example, do we have an ethical obligation to provide antidepressants to astronauts? Obviously astronauts are thoroughly vetted and go through a rigorous training process. However, can we never be 100% sure that circumstances will not cause the astronauts to crack under the pressure of outer space travel.