- Email: [email protected]
Public perceptions of the Mars sample return program
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
Public perceptions of the Mars sample return program Ragnar E. Lofstedt* School of Social Sciences & Public Policy, King’s Centre for Risk Management, King’s College, The Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
Abstract In 2014 NASA may bring back a sample of Mars rocks, soil and atmosphere to Earth. The most likely location for returning this sample will be somewhere in the central USA. The purpose of the project is to understand the history of Mars; the samples may also reveal evidence of previous or existing life on Mars. Confirmation of this possibility would rank as one of the most profound discoveries in human history, yet to date it is unclear how the public in the USA actually views the mission. This study addresses this issue by examining the views of 70 residents of Cincinnati, OH. These perceptions are examined in light of the conceptual ideas and theories presented in the risk perception and communication literatures. While respondents were generally favourable towards a Mars sample return mission, and largely unworried by possible risks, they did have concerns about the use of plutonium for electrical propulsion and were somewhat ill-informed about the issues. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Background In 2014 NASA may bring back a sample of Mars rocks, soil and atmosphere to Earth both in order to study the planet’s geology and climatology and to look for evidence of previous or existing life. The most likely location for returning this sample will be somewhere in the central USA. The Mars sample return (MSR) vehicle is likely to be launched from Cape Canaveral Florida and may use radioisotope power systems (RPS) containing up to 33 kg of plutonium to generate electricity for the spacecraft. If plutonium is used it will stay on Mars and not return to Earth. There has been much discussion in the US specialist press of NASA’s potential MSR project [1–4]. The issue has generated considerable interest as preliminary indications show, based on past Mars missions, that water may have existed on Mars and therefore possibly life. The cost of the mission, which may be a joint project with the French and Italian space agencies, is projected to be more than US$1 billion. Following recent NASA announcements that there may have been some form of life on Mars, the mass media (both print and television) have extensively covered the question ‘‘Has there been life on Mars?’’ (e.g. [5,6]). However, to date, NASA’s planned MSR mission has not received the same attention in the US or world-wide media. In
the Economist article cited above, for example, the planned mission is discussed in one sentence stating that, after the end of the reconnaissance phase in 2011, there will be a sample return mission. The main reason for this lack of attention is the fact that such a mission is still about 10 years away. Indeed, media discussion of Mars missions focuses on those that will take place in the short term (e.g. the recently launched ESA 2003 Mars Express mission). However, NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which manages the Mars missions for NASA, are interested in finding out about the public’s perceptions of the MSR programme, so as to be able to engage the public regarding specific areas of concern. This study addresses the issue by examining the views of 70 residents of Cincinnati, OH about the programme and discussing their perceptions in the light of the conceptual ideas and theories presented in the risk-perception and communication literatures.1 NASA and JPL have already started advanced planning of the MSR mission. NASA and JPL are working with risk communication specialists to examine public perceptions of Mars-related issues (e.g. [7–11]) and are preparing a comprehensive, coordinated Mars risk communication plan, in line with the recent report from the Space Studies Board (SSB) [12].
1
*Tel.: +44-207-848-1404; fax: +44-207-848-2984. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.E. Lofstedt). 0265-9646/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2003.08.002
This is a preliminary and an exploratory study. The study was limited in both budget and time allotment and hence neither the sample is random nor are all the results statistically significant.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 284
R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
NASA’s and JPL’s concern is well founded. There have been a series of protests against the launch of space vehicles containing radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) in the past. A wide array of stakeholders and public were opposed to the Galileo, Ulysses and, more recently, the Cassini missions. In past space missions the use of RTGs has not been unproblematic, although there has been little radioactive release. The Apollo 13 spacecraft jettisoned its RTG at re-entry as it did not land on the Moon, while the 1968 Nimbus mission did not achieve orbit because of a malfunctioning launch, leading to a jettisoning of its RTG as well. The Nimbus RTG was recovered but the Apollo one was not. Russian space vehicles have also had some problems with RTGs [13]. As the MSR probe may also be powered by RPS, using plutonium similar public concerns may arise. There are three additional RPS issues that NASA and JPL are concerned about: *
*
*
It is likely that if RPS are used these generating devices will remain on Mars and not return to earth. This may engender public opposition as people may see NASA as polluting the ‘‘final frontier’’. This would be similar to the argument Greenpeace’s successfully used against Shell when it tried to dump the Brent Spar oil storage buoy in the deep-sea stating that it is morally wrong to pollute the ‘‘untouched’’ deep-sea [14]. There is a concern that microbes aboard the lander sent from Earth may unintentionally contaminate Mars (so-called forward contamination) [12]. There may be some public concern about the Mars sample itself, as there is a minute chance that the probe could bring back some form of microbe that may prove a threat to life on Earth (so-called back contamination) [15]. This concern has some basis as there is evidence that the samples of rock from the Moon were not properly contained and were exposed to the atmosphere before they were fully analysed [15].
Most of these issues will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement that NASA would need to do prior to launch [10,16]. NASA is not the only space agency contemplating sending an unmanned probe to analyse rock and soil samples from the surface and shallow sub-surface of Mars. In spring 2003 the European Space Agency launched the Mars Express mission. This mission has a landing vehicle called Beagle 2, developed and designed by UK scientists, costing roughly $45 million. It will analyse soil samples from the surface of Mars and just below to see if there are any signs of life on the planet. The Beagle 2 project has received considerable media interest, both on television and in print.
2. The research project: methodology Unlike past research projects on MSR, this research project utilized an in-depth face-to-face questionnaire survey, consisting of three sections (see Appendix A). Section 1 consisted of background questions—how do the respondents view space research, is it money well spent and have they heard of the MSR programme? Section 2 gave a description of the MSR project itself— what it entailed, the likely costs, and asked about issues of concern to the respondents. Section 3 contained a series of questions focusing on determining respondents’ reactions to the project and how these might be addressed by the NASA/JPL Mars programme. Do the respondents support the programme, are they concerned about the risks that it entails and how do they think that NASA should best communicate the risks associated with the Mars programme? The survey was administered by the author to 70 members of the public in Cincinnati, Ohio between 2 and 6 July 2001, and lasted anywhere from 20 min to an hour. The author has carried out a number of face-toface surveys over the past 13 years discussing topics from public perceptions of global warming to public perceptions of nuclear power and energy conservation (e.g. [17–19]). In this case he approached perspective respondents, casually dressed (most days wearing jeans or shorts and short-sleeved shirts), stating the following: Hello, my name is Ragnar Lofstedt and I am from Surrey and Harvard Universities [the author was at the time a Reader at University of Surrey and an adjunct associate professor at Harvard] and I am conducting a study on public perceptions to research. The study is funded by the California Institute of Technology, and all the results will be published in scientific journals. Can we ask you a couple of questions? Cincinnati was chosen for the research location as a city reasonably representative of the USA in general. Following an initial scoping exercise looking at a series of possible locations in the greater Cincinnati area, the reception area of the Cincinnati Museum Center was chosen. The Museum Center is a multi-complex site housed at the former Union Terminal train station, and combines a number of separate museums including the Cincinnati History Museum, the Cinergy Children’s Museum, a Museum of natural history and science, a theatre and the Cincinnati Historical Society Library. The museum does not have a space exhibit. The museum was picked for several reasons: *
Individuals would be easily approachable there. In the reception area there are cafes, seating areas and shops where people are eating or milling around.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
Visitors to the Museum would not just be coming from the greater Cincinnati area but from more rural areas close by (e.g. small cities in Indiana and Kentucky—approximately 25 per cent of the sample came from these regions). The Museum is known for its children’s section, so it attracts a cross section of families and individuals.
*
*
To achieve the target sample of 70 respondents, 74 people were approached, giving a very high response rate of 95 per cent. Most of the people approached were interested in space research and showed keenness to participate in the survey. Of the 70 respondents who participated 36 were male and 34 were female. Fiftyseven of them had children, and the average education level was ‘‘some college’’ (that is 1–3 years college either at community college level or at a state or national university). The mean age of the sample was 40–50 with very few people below the age of 20 (2) or above the age of 70 (3).2 Most of the respondents did not support environmental groups such as Greenpeace or Environment Defense Fund (50 said they did not), and 67 of the 70 respondents found the questionnaire interesting. Of those individuals who refused to participate in the survey (4) the primary reason give was too little time.
3. Risk perception and communication Risk communication has its roots in risk perception, a field that dates back to the seminal work of Gilbert White in the 1940s. White’s work in natural hazards [20] and the work of Baruch Fischhoff, Paul Slovic and others on technological hazards in the 1970s [21,22] showed that the public perceive some risks differently than others for a series of reasons such as degree of control, catastrophic potential, and familiarity. In the late 1980s, many researchers began to experiment with the application of some of the findings of risk perception research to risk communication [23,24]. While risk communication cannot be defined as an independent discipline, it is perhaps best described as ‘‘The flow of information and risk evaluations back and forth between academic experts, regulatory practitioners, interest groups, and the general public’’ [25, p. 86]. At its best, risk communication is not a top-down form of communication from expert to the lay public, but rather a constructive dialogue between all those involved in a particular debate about risk [44].
To date the outcomes of the various risk communication programmes relating to environmental hazards implemented in Europe and the USA have largely been ineffective. The public tend to remain hostile to the local siting of waste incinerators and nuclear waste dumps, a reaction which has not been significantly influenced by the repeated implementation of risk communication programmes [25–27]. While in part such responses might be attributable to the practical problems associated with the lack of funding of risk communication programmes and, from this, failure to conduct proper evaluations to learn why programmes failed [28–31], due account must also be taken of the inability of practitioners to understand that they have to work together with the public rather than simply ‘‘educate’’ them [32]. With regard to risk perception and communication research in the space area there are basically three academic groups and a small number polling institutes that have examined public perceptions of NASA’s performance. Baruch Fischhoff’s group at Carnegie Mellon have specifically looked at the use of nuclear power sources in space [33–36], Tim McDaniel’s group at the University of British Columbia, has focused on evaluating NASA’s and JPL’s risk communication outputs for the Cassini Mission to Saturn [37], and Decision Research has focused on public and expert perceptions of the MSR [8–11,27,38]. Of the research teams highlighted here, only Decision Research has specifically looked at expert and lay public concerns regarding MSR missions. Their work has primarily consisted of postal surveys using closed-ended questions with members of the Planetary Society, as well as written surveys aimed at scientists and students. The sample sizes of some of these surveys have been impressive. For example, the 1994 survey aimed at members of the Planetary Society achieved a sample size of 4300. More recently, Decision Research has used focus groups to gather more information from lay citizens (e.g. [11]). Overall, the results of polls, as well as the academic research, suggest the following:
*
*
*
*
* 2
The reason for the vagueness of the mean age of the sample has to do with the fact that the author did not specifically ask the age of the correspondent as this can be rather embarrassing. Rather the correspondents were asked what age group they fitted in, e.g. under 20, 20–30, 30–40 and so forth.
285
*
MSR is not perceived as a major societal risk issue when compared with other well-known scientific and technological risks [11]. Experts show low concern about Mars samples possibly contaminating earth [11]. Experts and publics believed that NASA would successfully complete the MSR mission [8,11,28,38]. Overall the public perceived possible biohazards associated with the MSR mission as low [37]. Most members of the Planetary Society felt that space exploration was important for the future of human society [8]. A majority of Americans believe that NASA is doing a good or excellent job. A recent Gallup survey found
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
286
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
64 per cent of respondents saying this, the highest since 1993 [39]. More than 50 per cent of Americans take the view that the space program is exciting and worthwhile [40]. Forty-nine per cent believe that the benefits exceed the cost [41]. In some research studies, 60 per cent of respondents indicated that for human space flight the benefits outweigh the risks [37]. The lay US public knows a reasonable amount about the risks of siting nuclear power systems in space; individually, however, they usually know only one or two facts [33–35]. The public are confused about the term radiation and in studies mentioned both relevant and irrelevant forms with regard to space travel [33,34]. Respondents know little about how radioactive materials affected public health [33]. The general public are able to comprehend and digest quite a bit of information on the use of nuclear technologies in space [36]. Among members of the general public, greater knowledge meant more positive attitudes toward the use of nuclear power in space [34]. The public will not achieve these positive attitudes, however, if either the source of the information is not trusted or because the information provided concerns risks that the public may oppose [36]. Among members of technical and environmental groups there is no correlation between knowledge and positive attitude [34,35].
nicate the risks of the MSR mission to the US public. The results of this question are discussed below.
5. Results The preliminary results point to a varying degree of adherence to the suggested hypotheses.3
5.1. Public perceptions of space research As hypothesized, and in line with previous poll findings [8,39,40] the majority of the respondents were in favour of space research. Of the 70 respondents, 60 felt that space research was a good thing and gave a range of reasons why (see Table 1). The perception that humankind is destroying the Earth to such an extent that we need to investigate space is particularly interesting. Respondents said: We are using up the natural resources of this planet. We need to find a comparable planet so we can mess up that one as well. (Retired male, 4 years college) Let’s face it, we are in the process of destroying this planet. It is getting more and more polluted and we are using up all of its natural resources. Therefore we need a space program, we need to find planets which we can populate and mine resources from as there is not much left on Earth. (Young male, just finished BA)
4. Working hypotheses Based on the research on public perceptions of space and NASA a series of working hypothesis were developed: *
*
*
*
The majority of the respondents would support space research and see it as money well spent. The majority of the respondents would never have heard of the MSR project. Once respondents had been told about the technical aspects of the programme (Section 2 of the questionnaire) they would have safety concerns particularly about sending plutonium up to space. The majority of the respondents would perceive the risks associated with the Mars sample itself and the analysis of it as minimal, on the condition that necessary precautions were being taken.
In addition to these working hypotheses an exploratory question was added with regard to how the respondents felt that NASA/JPL could best commu-
With regard to those 10 individuals who did not support space research two most common answers were ‘‘it is a waste of money’’ and ‘‘I would support it if it cost less’’.
5.2. Knowledge of the MSR program In line with the working hypotheses, of the 70 respondents 46 had never heard of the proposed MSR project. Twenty-four respondents had heard of some aspects of the project (see Table 2). In sum, even the respondents who had heard something about the project knew very little about it. What was interesting, albeit in line with previous findings [11,38], was that only one of the 24 respondents had any concern about it. 3 It should be noted that this is a preliminary pilot study. The results reported here in should not be treated as necessarily significant, but rather be viewed as insights which would be helpful for further investigation.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292 Table 1 Why is space research good (respondents can have more than one answer) Need to know what is out there Destroying earth, need new resources The research has led to benefits in other areas Do not know
33 28 15 7
N=60.
287
Table 3 Why do you oppose the Mars sample return project It is a waste of money Need to clean up earth first Solve diseases like Aids first Look at over population first Use the money for poverty here Use money for schools instead
14 4 2 1 1 1
N=23. Table 2 What have you heard about the Mars sample return project Nothing specific—just heard about it To see if there is life on Mars To bring soil samples back Sounded really cool
Table 4 Why do you support the Mars sample return project
15 4 3 2
N=24.
5.3. Initial reactions to the MSR program
I really just like it It is a good use of money It is fascinating Let us bring soil back from Mars Let us find life! They will do it anyway Do not know
22 11 9 1 1 1 2
N=47.
As mentioned above, after Section 1, a paragraph was read to all those surveyed about the purpose of the MSR mission (see Appendix A, part 2). They were then asked whether they supported the project. It should be noted that the paragraph read to the respondents contained relatively complex information. As a result some of the findings may be hard to justify, as the information may not have been adequately absorbed and considered. However, as this is a pilot study, it was felt that initial responses to the questions would lead to useful insights for further investigations in this area. Of the 70 respondents, 47 respondents supported the project while 23 opposed it. Those who opposed it did so primarily on cost grounds (see Table 3). One female, age group 50–60, with junior high education said: This project is studying history. I mean we are examining if life ever existed on Mars. What we should be looking at is present day space issues and not historical ones. I see it as a waste of money.
Another male, some college education, in the 30–40age group said: I have always liked space research. It is neat stuff. I just like this proposed mission. Let’s do it. 5.4. Public concerns to the MSR project This topic was divided up between concern about the project itself and concern about the sample once it has returned to earth. 5.4.1. General public concern Of the 70 respondents, 21 had concerns. Of those who said they had no worries comments made included: I have no worries about this project. I think it is neat stuff and we should go ahead with it. (male 40–50, some college) I used to be in the air force. If they recruited astronauts from my age group to go to Mars and help out, I would be the first to go. I have no worries about this project. (male, over 70 with a postgraduate education)
Of those who supported the project, the reasons listed can be seen in Table 4. Virtually half of those respondents supporting the project did not have any particular reasons why they did so, while roughly 25 per cent supported it for monetary reasons. For example, one female from Indiana, with a BA and in her mid-40s said:
The 21 individuals who were concerned mentioned various issues (see Table 5). As Table 5 shows, the respondents’ greatest worry was using plutonium in the mission and leaving it on Mars
The federal government is known to waste money. For instance, look at those expensive toilet seats installed in the Pentagon. I mean really this project is probably less than 1 percent of the Pentagon’s budget. I bet you we will learn more from this project than what we will from building another expensive fighter plane—let’s do it.
We have no business polluting the Martian environment with 33 kgs of radioactive plutonium. (male, postgraduate educated, 50–60) I feel uncomfortable with this plutonium business. I mean what happens with the rocket explodes on take off? Also why should we leave the plutonium there? It seems really stupid—we will trash a planet
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
288
Table 5 What concerns do you have regarding the Mars sample return project We should not leave plutonium on Mars We should not use plutonium on this mission Adequate safe guards are needed ‘‘No galaxy terminators’’ We should not bring things back from space to the US
9 5 3 2 2
Table 6 Why are you not concerned about living within a 20-mile vicinity of a lab analysing the Mars sample I am sure it will be safe It will be properly contained You have got to take some risks sometimes
27 17 10
N=54.
N=21.
that we are trying to explore. (female, some college education, 40–50) 5.4.2. Public reactions to the sample once it has returned to Earth In line with previous research findings [11], in general the respondents had even fewer concerns about the sample itself. Of the 70 individuals interviewed only 10 were concerned about it. For example, one male 40–50, with some college said: Why should I be worried about the Mars sample coming back to Earth? Do you know that during the Cold War the Russians had their missiles pointed at us here in Cincinnati as a nearby air force base was part of the strategic air command system? Talk about risks—get some perspective! From the opposite side, one female, high school education, age 50–60 said: I don’t want any alien microbes here on Earth. I mean we have no idea of what they may contain— makes me very worried. My whole family could be wiped out. However, when the respondents were asked to consider whether they would live within a 20-mile radius of a laboratory analysing the Mars sample, 54 individuals indicated they would while 16 said they would not. Reasons provided by the former are listed in Table 6. For example one female, 30–40 with some college education said: They will take proper safety precautions, I am sure of that. I just hope that the sample, when it has been analysed, will be open to the public to visit.
Table 7 Why are you concerned about living within a 20-mile vicinity of a lab analysing the Mars sample? (respondents can have more than one answer) I don’t trust the government I just don’t want this stuff There may be microbes in it that can escape Better safe than sorry Do not know
9 7 5 2 3
N=16.
6. NASA and risk communication In exploratory research of this nature, it is difficult to craft risk communication strategies without significant input from the public [23,41,42]. In an attempt to learn more on how the public felt about the risk communication of space research a question was added at the end of the questionnaire on how the respondents would communicate the risks to the public if they worked on these issues on behalf of NASA. This question sparked a great deal of interest among the respondents. Issues of both process (Table 8) and substance (Table 9) were raised. Within these answers issues of substance were brought up by 49 of the respondents: Most of the issues raised by the respondents have been discussed at some length in the communication media (e.g. [42]). That said a few respondents were rather cynical (keep it all hiddeny) others had highly creative responses. For example, one female, 40 50 age group with postgraduate education said: This Mars sample return program needs to be communicated as widely as possible. What I would do is to encourage people like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to come forward supporting it. It could also be a McDonalds’ Happy Meal project. That is to say small kids could get happy meals with Mars sample return toys.
Reasons cited by those who were concerned about living near the location where the proposed sample would be analysed are shown in Table 7. One male, high school education, 20–30 age group said:
One male, 50–60 age group with postgraduate education said:
I don’t trust government. Politicians always lie. Why should I trust NASA? We don’t know where they will put the sample.
Let’s open a public information stand regarding the Mars sample return project at Disney World. That would generate considerable attention, and it would
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292 Table 8 If you were NASA how would you best communicate the risks associated with the Mars sample return project (respondents can have more than one answer) Television Print media Make the public aware
37 29 14
N=70. Table 9 Risk communication: substance (respondents can have more than one answer) Be honest Focus on the benefits and not the risks Be open and transparent Keep it all hidden and do not say a thing Start early in the school system I don’t believe that NASA will communicate at all Other
9
289
7.2. The perceived usefulness of the MSR mission It was disheartening to hear many respondents saying that Mars had to be explored as Earth was being destroyed. It would be interesting to do further research on this to determine the factors driving such pessimistic environmental perceptions. Related to this issue, more detailed work on what people perceive as the benefits of space research is needed. For example, what do the public actually mean by ‘‘space research is needed to explore the final frontier’’? 7.3. Lack of concern regarding the MSR
9 8 7 7 5 9
N=49.
guarantee that the youngsters of this country would be informed.
7. Analysis: what can NASA/JPL learn from this research study? In line with previous research findings [11,38], the majority of the respondents were both in favour of space research and the MSR Project. That said several issues are highlighted that should be of concern to NASA. 7.1. The public’s lack of knowledge On the whole the respondents in this study had very little knowledge about the project. Although this should not necessarily be surprising considering there has been little media attention, the issue needs to be addressed, as there is an information vacuum. If NASA does not start to disseminate information about the project, there is a strong chance people will become misinformed. This could result in reluctance or even opposition to it, and NASA would probably, sooner or later, be forced into a retroactive or fire-fighting communication mode, which on the whole generates public distrust [43]. As one respondent said in the interviews: I hope that NASA has more people like you [the author] around as if Hollywood makes this into a disaster movie NASA will have all kinds of problems. (Male, postgraduate education, 40–50) Such an information campaign could include, for example, schools, Disneyworld and McDonalds as suggested by some of the respondents. This would target young people and their families.
On the whole, in line with past research findings [11,38], the respondents in this study did not perceive risks associated with the project—be it the launch of the probe from Florida, or the return and analysis of the soil sample on Earth—as particularly high. Although not made explicit by the respondents, based on the polling results (high approval ratings) one could hypothesize that they saw the risks as low because the respondents felt that NASA was competent and could therefore be trusted. This issue of NASA’s competence is something that has been questioned following two recent Mars mission mishaps, and something that is of concern to the agency. Based on the survey results, however, NASA’s reputation appeared to be largely intact at the time of the survey (as measured by the respondents’ support for a MSR mission). Of the 70 respondents only one mentioned either of the Mars mission mishaps and the respondent did so in a positive light: Yes, NASA did screw up mixing metrics with inches. But I have no worries about the Mars Sample Return mission. If the laboratory will meet the highest international safety standards why should I be worried? (Female, 40–50 years, 4 years college) It should be noted that possibly the main explanation for the public’s lack of concern is that there is so little information about the project currently in the public domain. Several respondents did mention that ‘‘ignorance is bliss’’. Had there been an environmental groupdriven media campaign resulting in social amplification, with NASA on the defensive, the respondents’ reactions would probably have been very different (see, for e.g., [14]). This comes back to the point made earlier, that NASA needs to start communicating about this project before somebody else does. 7.4. The plutonium issue One issue that some respondents were concerned about was the use of plutonium. Why should NASA send up a plutonium-powered probe in the first place and secondly, and more importantly, why should NASA
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
290
leave this plutonium on Mars? This issue does require attention. NASA/JPL will need to make a strong case why plutonium needs to be on board in this space craft, particularly when the British Beagle project will not use plutonium. Secondly, more attention will need to be paid to why the plutonium will be left on Mars. The public reaction to leaving RPS on Mars is likely to be similar to the public reaction to perceived contamination of Antarctica or the deep-sea ocean, that is to say unacceptable [14]. 7.5. The containment of the sample As long as the containment of the Mars sample meets stringent international guidelines (which in this case are likely to be more stringent than CDC-NIH BSL-4 standards) [7], as advocated in the 1997 SSB report, respondents do not appear concerned about bringing back the sample to the USA. What NASA/JPL mean by ‘‘safe containment’’ is something that the agencies need to communicate clearly to the public and others.
8. Initial conclusions This study has looked at public perceptions of risk toward NASA’s and JPL’s proposed MSR project. The study has shown the following: *
*
*
*
A majority of respondents supported space research, seeing it as necessary to find new planets and resources and also to advance our knowledge. Overall the respondents had little knowledge of the MSR project. The knowledge that they did have was generally favourable. After giving respondents information on the proposed project, the majority still supported it. There were few concerns expressed about the project. The concerns raised focused particularly on the use of plutonium.
Acknowledgements I am indebted to the following people who have either provided me with information or commented on earlier versions of this paper: Bill and Eileen Bishop, Baruch Fischhoff (Carnegie Mellon University), Sandra Dawson (Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Cal.tech.), Shirin Elahi (Shell International), Margaret Race (SETI Institute) and the museum staff at the Cincinnati Museum Center. In addition I would like to thank the referees of this journal for their most helpful and insightful comments. The research on which this article is based derives from funding provided by NASA via the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology.
Appendix A. Survey questionnaire Introduction (to be given to perspective respondents in the selected locations) Hello my name is and I am from University of Surrey/Harvard University conducting a study on public perceptions to research. The study is funded by the California Institute of Technology, and all the results will be published in scientific journals. Can we ask you a couple of questions? Part 1: General public perception to space, NASA and the MSR programme. (1) In your view what is space research? What are your feelings about space research? Is it good or bad? Why do you say this? (open ended question) (2) Do you feel that we should be spending money on space research? YES/NO Why do you say this Is it needed? Is it money well spent? (3) Have you ever heard of NASA’s MSR project? YES/NO (4) (If yes) What have you heard? (5) (If yes) In your view, what are the pros and cons of the program? (6) (If yes) Do you have any concern about bringing back samples from Mars to Earth? (7) (If yes) what are your concerns? (8) (If yes) Do you think we should bring back a sample of soil from Mars? Why or why not? (9) (If yes) How should be best store this Mars sample? (10) (If yes) Where would you want to see this Mars sample stored? Why do you say this? (11) (If yes) Would you like to have this sample within a 20-mile vicinity of your home? Why or why not? (12) (If yes) Will there be any overall environment or health impact of sending up a MSR probe to Mars? (13) (If yes) What type of implications will there be? (14) (If yes) If you were NASA, how would you communicate the possible risks associated with the MSR program? Part 2: Description of what JPL/NASA plans to do: (to be read to each respondent) In 2014 NASA may bring back a sample of Mars soil to earth. The most likely location for returning this soil sample will be somewhere in central United States. The MSR vehicle which is likely to be launched from Cape Canaveral Florida and may use up to 33 kg of
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
plutonium to generate electricity for the spacecraft. If plutonium is used it will stay on Mars and not return to earth. The purpose of this project is to collect soil samples that may reveal evidence of previous existing life on Mars. Confirmation of this possibility would rank as one of the most profound discoveries in human history. Preliminary indications show that Mars is presently lifeless but that there may have been a presence of water on the planet. The soil sample, which has a small chance of containing some form of life, once brought back to earth will be stored and analysed in an ultra secure faculty meeting the highest type international safety standards. The cost of this project, financed by NASA (with possible cooperation from the French, Italian and other space agencies) is projected to be approximately $1 billion. Part 3: (15) Based on this information, what is your view of NASA’s MSR project? Do you support it or oppose it? Why? (16) In your view, what are the pros and cons of the program? (17) Do you have any concern about bringing samples back from Mars to earth? (18) What are your concerns? (19) Do you think that we should bring a sample of soil back from Mars? Why or why not? (20) How should we best store this Mars sample? (21) Would you like to have this Mars sample within a 20-mile vicinity of your home? Why or why not? (22) Where would you want to see the Mars sample stored? Why do you say this? (23) Do you think there will be any overall environment or health impact of sending up a MSR probe to Mars? (24) What type of implications do you think there would be? (25) If you were NASA, how would you communicate the possible risks associated with the MSR program? Part 4: Background questions (26) Age Under 20 20–30 30–40 50–60 70–80 (27) Do you support environmental group such on Greenpeace? (28) Do you have children? YES NO (29) How much education have you had Junior High High School Some College
291
4 years College More than 4 years College (30) Did you find this study interesting?
References [1] David L. Europe boards the Mars express. Space.Com.; 22 May 2000. [2] Moomaw B. Mars in the early 21st century. Spacedaily.Com; 6 November 2000. [3] Sorid D. Mars Express: Europe takes the lead. Space.Com; 28 June 2000. [4] Space News. Reconsidering Mars sample return; 30th October 2000. p. 22. [5] Broad WJ. Reports of dead Mars are greatly exaggerated. New York Times; 25 July 2000. p. D1, D4. [6] Martian chronicles. Economist; 7 April 2001. p. 111–3. [7] Lofstedt RE. Good and bad examples of siting and building biosafety level 4 laboratories: a study of Winnipeg, Galveston and Etobicoke. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2002;93:47–66. [8] MacGregor D, Slovic P. The planetary exploration survey: what society members think about planetary protection. Planetary Report 1995;15(2):4–6. [9] Race MS. Anticipating the reaction: public concern about sample return missions. Planetary Report 1994;14:20–2. [10] Race MS. Mars sample return and planetary protection in a public context. Advanced Space Research 1998;22(3):391–9. [11] Race MS, MacGregor DG. Integrating public perspectives in sample return planning. Advances in Space Research; 2001, in press. [12] Space Studies Board (National Research Council). Biological contamination of mars: issues and recommendations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992. [13] Foley TM. NASA prepares for protests over nuclear system launch on shuttle in October. Aviation Week and Space Technology 1989;26:83–7. . [14] Lofstedt RE, Renn O. The Brent Spar controversy: an example of risk communication gone wrong. Risk Analysis 1997;17(2):131–6. [15] Space Studies Board (National Research Council). Mars sample return: issues and recommendations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997. [16] Sterns PM, Tennen LI. Regulation of space activities and transscience: public perceptions and policy considerations. Space Policy 1995;11(3):181–92. [17] Lofstedt RE. Lay perspectives of climate change in Sweden. Energy and Environment, 1992;3(2):161–75. [18] Lofstedt RE. Lay perspectives concerning global climate change in Austria. Energy and Environment 1993;4(2):140–54. [19] Lofstedt RE. The role of trust in the North Blackforest: an evaluation of a citizen panel project. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 1999;10(1):10–30. [20] White GF. Human adjustment to floods: a geographical approach to the flood in the United States. Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago Press; 1945. [21] Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risk and benefits. Policy Studies 1978;9:127–52. [22] Slovic P. Risk perception. Science 1987;236:280–5. [23] National Research Council. Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989. [24] Stern PC. Learning through conflict: a realistic strategy for risk communication. Policy Sciences 1991;24:99–119. [25] Adler RS, Pittle RD. Cajolery or command: are educational campaigns an adequate substitute for regulation? Yale Journal on Regulation 1984;1:159–93.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 292
R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
[26] Cvetkovich GT, Keren GB, Earle TC. Prescriptive considerations for risk communications. Paper presented at the meeting of the international research group on risk communication; 1986. [27] Slovic P, MacGregor DG. Perceptions of planetary protection: preliminary survey analysis. Eugene, OR: Decision Research; 1996. [28] Chess C, Salomone KL, Hance BJ, Saville A. Results of national symposium on risk communication: next steps for government agencies. Risk Analysis 1995;15:115–25. [29] Chess C, Salomone KL, Hance BJ. Improving risk communication in government: research priorities. Risk analysis 1995;15: 127–35. [30] Kasperson RE, Palmlund I. Evaluating risk communication. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT. (Eds.), Effective risk communication: the role and responsibility of government and non-government organisations. New York: Plenum; 1987, pp. 143–158. [31] Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis 1995;15: 137–45. [32] Leiss W. Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1996;545:85–94. [33] Maharik M, Fischhoff B. The risks of using nuclear energy sources in space: some lay activists’ perceptions. Risk Analysis 1992;12:383–92.
[34] Maharik M, Fischhoff B. Risk knowledge and risk attitudes regarding nuclear energy sources in space. Risk Analysis 1993;13:345–53. [35] Maharik M, Fischhoff B. Contrasting perceptions of the risks of using nuclear energy sources in space. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1993;13:243–50. [36] Maharik M, Fischhoff B. Public views of using nuclear energy sources in space missions. Space Policy 1993;9:99–108. [37] Arvai JL. Evaluating NASA’s role in risk communication process surrounding space policy decisions. Space Policy 2000;16:61–9. [38] MacGregor D, Slovic P, Race MS. Brief report: lay and expert perceptions of planetary protection. Eugene, OR: Decision Research; 1996. [39] Gallup Organization. Despite recent high visibility, Americans not enthusiastic about spending more money on space program. The Gallup Program; 28 July 1999. [40] National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators-2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2000. [41] National Research Council. Understanding risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996. [42] Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (Eds). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1995. [43] Powell D, Leiss W. Mad cows and mother’s milk: the perils of poor risk communication. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 1997. [44] Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution. Setting environmental standards. London: Stationary Office; 1998.
Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
Public perceptions of the Mars sample return program Ragnar E. Lofstedt* School of Social Sciences & Public Policy, King’s Centre for Risk Management, King’s College, The Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
Abstract In 2014 NASA may bring back a sample of Mars rocks, soil and atmosphere to Earth. The most likely location for returning this sample will be somewhere in the central USA. The purpose of the project is to understand the history of Mars; the samples may also reveal evidence of previous or existing life on Mars. Confirmation of this possibility would rank as one of the most profound discoveries in human history, yet to date it is unclear how the public in the USA actually views the mission. This study addresses this issue by examining the views of 70 residents of Cincinnati, OH. These perceptions are examined in light of the conceptual ideas and theories presented in the risk perception and communication literatures. While respondents were generally favourable towards a Mars sample return mission, and largely unworried by possible risks, they did have concerns about the use of plutonium for electrical propulsion and were somewhat ill-informed about the issues. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Background In 2014 NASA may bring back a sample of Mars rocks, soil and atmosphere to Earth both in order to study the planet’s geology and climatology and to look for evidence of previous or existing life. The most likely location for returning this sample will be somewhere in the central USA. The Mars sample return (MSR) vehicle is likely to be launched from Cape Canaveral Florida and may use radioisotope power systems (RPS) containing up to 33 kg of plutonium to generate electricity for the spacecraft. If plutonium is used it will stay on Mars and not return to Earth. There has been much discussion in the US specialist press of NASA’s potential MSR project [1–4]. The issue has generated considerable interest as preliminary indications show, based on past Mars missions, that water may have existed on Mars and therefore possibly life. The cost of the mission, which may be a joint project with the French and Italian space agencies, is projected to be more than US$1 billion. Following recent NASA announcements that there may have been some form of life on Mars, the mass media (both print and television) have extensively covered the question ‘‘Has there been life on Mars?’’ (e.g. [5,6]). However, to date, NASA’s planned MSR mission has not received the same attention in the US or world-wide media. In
the Economist article cited above, for example, the planned mission is discussed in one sentence stating that, after the end of the reconnaissance phase in 2011, there will be a sample return mission. The main reason for this lack of attention is the fact that such a mission is still about 10 years away. Indeed, media discussion of Mars missions focuses on those that will take place in the short term (e.g. the recently launched ESA 2003 Mars Express mission). However, NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which manages the Mars missions for NASA, are interested in finding out about the public’s perceptions of the MSR programme, so as to be able to engage the public regarding specific areas of concern. This study addresses the issue by examining the views of 70 residents of Cincinnati, OH about the programme and discussing their perceptions in the light of the conceptual ideas and theories presented in the risk-perception and communication literatures.1 NASA and JPL have already started advanced planning of the MSR mission. NASA and JPL are working with risk communication specialists to examine public perceptions of Mars-related issues (e.g. [7–11]) and are preparing a comprehensive, coordinated Mars risk communication plan, in line with the recent report from the Space Studies Board (SSB) [12].
1
*Tel.: +44-207-848-1404; fax: +44-207-848-2984. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.E. Lofstedt). 0265-9646/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.spacepol.2003.08.002
This is a preliminary and an exploratory study. The study was limited in both budget and time allotment and hence neither the sample is random nor are all the results statistically significant.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 284
R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
NASA’s and JPL’s concern is well founded. There have been a series of protests against the launch of space vehicles containing radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) in the past. A wide array of stakeholders and public were opposed to the Galileo, Ulysses and, more recently, the Cassini missions. In past space missions the use of RTGs has not been unproblematic, although there has been little radioactive release. The Apollo 13 spacecraft jettisoned its RTG at re-entry as it did not land on the Moon, while the 1968 Nimbus mission did not achieve orbit because of a malfunctioning launch, leading to a jettisoning of its RTG as well. The Nimbus RTG was recovered but the Apollo one was not. Russian space vehicles have also had some problems with RTGs [13]. As the MSR probe may also be powered by RPS, using plutonium similar public concerns may arise. There are three additional RPS issues that NASA and JPL are concerned about: *
*
*
It is likely that if RPS are used these generating devices will remain on Mars and not return to earth. This may engender public opposition as people may see NASA as polluting the ‘‘final frontier’’. This would be similar to the argument Greenpeace’s successfully used against Shell when it tried to dump the Brent Spar oil storage buoy in the deep-sea stating that it is morally wrong to pollute the ‘‘untouched’’ deep-sea [14]. There is a concern that microbes aboard the lander sent from Earth may unintentionally contaminate Mars (so-called forward contamination) [12]. There may be some public concern about the Mars sample itself, as there is a minute chance that the probe could bring back some form of microbe that may prove a threat to life on Earth (so-called back contamination) [15]. This concern has some basis as there is evidence that the samples of rock from the Moon were not properly contained and were exposed to the atmosphere before they were fully analysed [15].
Most of these issues will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement that NASA would need to do prior to launch [10,16]. NASA is not the only space agency contemplating sending an unmanned probe to analyse rock and soil samples from the surface and shallow sub-surface of Mars. In spring 2003 the European Space Agency launched the Mars Express mission. This mission has a landing vehicle called Beagle 2, developed and designed by UK scientists, costing roughly $45 million. It will analyse soil samples from the surface of Mars and just below to see if there are any signs of life on the planet. The Beagle 2 project has received considerable media interest, both on television and in print.
2. The research project: methodology Unlike past research projects on MSR, this research project utilized an in-depth face-to-face questionnaire survey, consisting of three sections (see Appendix A). Section 1 consisted of background questions—how do the respondents view space research, is it money well spent and have they heard of the MSR programme? Section 2 gave a description of the MSR project itself— what it entailed, the likely costs, and asked about issues of concern to the respondents. Section 3 contained a series of questions focusing on determining respondents’ reactions to the project and how these might be addressed by the NASA/JPL Mars programme. Do the respondents support the programme, are they concerned about the risks that it entails and how do they think that NASA should best communicate the risks associated with the Mars programme? The survey was administered by the author to 70 members of the public in Cincinnati, Ohio between 2 and 6 July 2001, and lasted anywhere from 20 min to an hour. The author has carried out a number of face-toface surveys over the past 13 years discussing topics from public perceptions of global warming to public perceptions of nuclear power and energy conservation (e.g. [17–19]). In this case he approached perspective respondents, casually dressed (most days wearing jeans or shorts and short-sleeved shirts), stating the following: Hello, my name is Ragnar Lofstedt and I am from Surrey and Harvard Universities [the author was at the time a Reader at University of Surrey and an adjunct associate professor at Harvard] and I am conducting a study on public perceptions to research. The study is funded by the California Institute of Technology, and all the results will be published in scientific journals. Can we ask you a couple of questions? Cincinnati was chosen for the research location as a city reasonably representative of the USA in general. Following an initial scoping exercise looking at a series of possible locations in the greater Cincinnati area, the reception area of the Cincinnati Museum Center was chosen. The Museum Center is a multi-complex site housed at the former Union Terminal train station, and combines a number of separate museums including the Cincinnati History Museum, the Cinergy Children’s Museum, a Museum of natural history and science, a theatre and the Cincinnati Historical Society Library. The museum does not have a space exhibit. The museum was picked for several reasons: *
Individuals would be easily approachable there. In the reception area there are cafes, seating areas and shops where people are eating or milling around.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
Visitors to the Museum would not just be coming from the greater Cincinnati area but from more rural areas close by (e.g. small cities in Indiana and Kentucky—approximately 25 per cent of the sample came from these regions). The Museum is known for its children’s section, so it attracts a cross section of families and individuals.
*
*
To achieve the target sample of 70 respondents, 74 people were approached, giving a very high response rate of 95 per cent. Most of the people approached were interested in space research and showed keenness to participate in the survey. Of the 70 respondents who participated 36 were male and 34 were female. Fiftyseven of them had children, and the average education level was ‘‘some college’’ (that is 1–3 years college either at community college level or at a state or national university). The mean age of the sample was 40–50 with very few people below the age of 20 (2) or above the age of 70 (3).2 Most of the respondents did not support environmental groups such as Greenpeace or Environment Defense Fund (50 said they did not), and 67 of the 70 respondents found the questionnaire interesting. Of those individuals who refused to participate in the survey (4) the primary reason give was too little time.
3. Risk perception and communication Risk communication has its roots in risk perception, a field that dates back to the seminal work of Gilbert White in the 1940s. White’s work in natural hazards [20] and the work of Baruch Fischhoff, Paul Slovic and others on technological hazards in the 1970s [21,22] showed that the public perceive some risks differently than others for a series of reasons such as degree of control, catastrophic potential, and familiarity. In the late 1980s, many researchers began to experiment with the application of some of the findings of risk perception research to risk communication [23,24]. While risk communication cannot be defined as an independent discipline, it is perhaps best described as ‘‘The flow of information and risk evaluations back and forth between academic experts, regulatory practitioners, interest groups, and the general public’’ [25, p. 86]. At its best, risk communication is not a top-down form of communication from expert to the lay public, but rather a constructive dialogue between all those involved in a particular debate about risk [44].
To date the outcomes of the various risk communication programmes relating to environmental hazards implemented in Europe and the USA have largely been ineffective. The public tend to remain hostile to the local siting of waste incinerators and nuclear waste dumps, a reaction which has not been significantly influenced by the repeated implementation of risk communication programmes [25–27]. While in part such responses might be attributable to the practical problems associated with the lack of funding of risk communication programmes and, from this, failure to conduct proper evaluations to learn why programmes failed [28–31], due account must also be taken of the inability of practitioners to understand that they have to work together with the public rather than simply ‘‘educate’’ them [32]. With regard to risk perception and communication research in the space area there are basically three academic groups and a small number polling institutes that have examined public perceptions of NASA’s performance. Baruch Fischhoff’s group at Carnegie Mellon have specifically looked at the use of nuclear power sources in space [33–36], Tim McDaniel’s group at the University of British Columbia, has focused on evaluating NASA’s and JPL’s risk communication outputs for the Cassini Mission to Saturn [37], and Decision Research has focused on public and expert perceptions of the MSR [8–11,27,38]. Of the research teams highlighted here, only Decision Research has specifically looked at expert and lay public concerns regarding MSR missions. Their work has primarily consisted of postal surveys using closed-ended questions with members of the Planetary Society, as well as written surveys aimed at scientists and students. The sample sizes of some of these surveys have been impressive. For example, the 1994 survey aimed at members of the Planetary Society achieved a sample size of 4300. More recently, Decision Research has used focus groups to gather more information from lay citizens (e.g. [11]). Overall, the results of polls, as well as the academic research, suggest the following:
*
*
*
*
* 2
The reason for the vagueness of the mean age of the sample has to do with the fact that the author did not specifically ask the age of the correspondent as this can be rather embarrassing. Rather the correspondents were asked what age group they fitted in, e.g. under 20, 20–30, 30–40 and so forth.
285
*
MSR is not perceived as a major societal risk issue when compared with other well-known scientific and technological risks [11]. Experts show low concern about Mars samples possibly contaminating earth [11]. Experts and publics believed that NASA would successfully complete the MSR mission [8,11,28,38]. Overall the public perceived possible biohazards associated with the MSR mission as low [37]. Most members of the Planetary Society felt that space exploration was important for the future of human society [8]. A majority of Americans believe that NASA is doing a good or excellent job. A recent Gallup survey found
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
286
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
64 per cent of respondents saying this, the highest since 1993 [39]. More than 50 per cent of Americans take the view that the space program is exciting and worthwhile [40]. Forty-nine per cent believe that the benefits exceed the cost [41]. In some research studies, 60 per cent of respondents indicated that for human space flight the benefits outweigh the risks [37]. The lay US public knows a reasonable amount about the risks of siting nuclear power systems in space; individually, however, they usually know only one or two facts [33–35]. The public are confused about the term radiation and in studies mentioned both relevant and irrelevant forms with regard to space travel [33,34]. Respondents know little about how radioactive materials affected public health [33]. The general public are able to comprehend and digest quite a bit of information on the use of nuclear technologies in space [36]. Among members of the general public, greater knowledge meant more positive attitudes toward the use of nuclear power in space [34]. The public will not achieve these positive attitudes, however, if either the source of the information is not trusted or because the information provided concerns risks that the public may oppose [36]. Among members of technical and environmental groups there is no correlation between knowledge and positive attitude [34,35].
nicate the risks of the MSR mission to the US public. The results of this question are discussed below.
5. Results The preliminary results point to a varying degree of adherence to the suggested hypotheses.3
5.1. Public perceptions of space research As hypothesized, and in line with previous poll findings [8,39,40] the majority of the respondents were in favour of space research. Of the 70 respondents, 60 felt that space research was a good thing and gave a range of reasons why (see Table 1). The perception that humankind is destroying the Earth to such an extent that we need to investigate space is particularly interesting. Respondents said: We are using up the natural resources of this planet. We need to find a comparable planet so we can mess up that one as well. (Retired male, 4 years college) Let’s face it, we are in the process of destroying this planet. It is getting more and more polluted and we are using up all of its natural resources. Therefore we need a space program, we need to find planets which we can populate and mine resources from as there is not much left on Earth. (Young male, just finished BA)
4. Working hypotheses Based on the research on public perceptions of space and NASA a series of working hypothesis were developed: *
*
*
*
The majority of the respondents would support space research and see it as money well spent. The majority of the respondents would never have heard of the MSR project. Once respondents had been told about the technical aspects of the programme (Section 2 of the questionnaire) they would have safety concerns particularly about sending plutonium up to space. The majority of the respondents would perceive the risks associated with the Mars sample itself and the analysis of it as minimal, on the condition that necessary precautions were being taken.
In addition to these working hypotheses an exploratory question was added with regard to how the respondents felt that NASA/JPL could best commu-
With regard to those 10 individuals who did not support space research two most common answers were ‘‘it is a waste of money’’ and ‘‘I would support it if it cost less’’.
5.2. Knowledge of the MSR program In line with the working hypotheses, of the 70 respondents 46 had never heard of the proposed MSR project. Twenty-four respondents had heard of some aspects of the project (see Table 2). In sum, even the respondents who had heard something about the project knew very little about it. What was interesting, albeit in line with previous findings [11,38], was that only one of the 24 respondents had any concern about it. 3 It should be noted that this is a preliminary pilot study. The results reported here in should not be treated as necessarily significant, but rather be viewed as insights which would be helpful for further investigation.
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292 Table 1 Why is space research good (respondents can have more than one answer) Need to know what is out there Destroying earth, need new resources The research has led to benefits in other areas Do not know
33 28 15 7
N=60.
287
Table 3 Why do you oppose the Mars sample return project It is a waste of money Need to clean up earth first Solve diseases like Aids first Look at over population first Use the money for poverty here Use money for schools instead
14 4 2 1 1 1
N=23. Table 2 What have you heard about the Mars sample return project Nothing specific—just heard about it To see if there is life on Mars To bring soil samples back Sounded really cool
Table 4 Why do you support the Mars sample return project
15 4 3 2
N=24.
5.3. Initial reactions to the MSR program
I really just like it It is a good use of money It is fascinating Let us bring soil back from Mars Let us find life! They will do it anyway Do not know
22 11 9 1 1 1 2
N=47.
As mentioned above, after Section 1, a paragraph was read to all those surveyed about the purpose of the MSR mission (see Appendix A, part 2). They were then asked whether they supported the project. It should be noted that the paragraph read to the respondents contained relatively complex information. As a result some of the findings may be hard to justify, as the information may not have been adequately absorbed and considered. However, as this is a pilot study, it was felt that initial responses to the questions would lead to useful insights for further investigations in this area. Of the 70 respondents, 47 respondents supported the project while 23 opposed it. Those who opposed it did so primarily on cost grounds (see Table 3). One female, age group 50–60, with junior high education said: This project is studying history. I mean we are examining if life ever existed on Mars. What we should be looking at is present day space issues and not historical ones. I see it as a waste of money.
Another male, some college education, in the 30–40age group said: I have always liked space research. It is neat stuff. I just like this proposed mission. Let’s do it. 5.4. Public concerns to the MSR project This topic was divided up between concern about the project itself and concern about the sample once it has returned to earth. 5.4.1. General public concern Of the 70 respondents, 21 had concerns. Of those who said they had no worries comments made included: I have no worries about this project. I think it is neat stuff and we should go ahead with it. (male 40–50, some college) I used to be in the air force. If they recruited astronauts from my age group to go to Mars and help out, I would be the first to go. I have no worries about this project. (male, over 70 with a postgraduate education)
Of those who supported the project, the reasons listed can be seen in Table 4. Virtually half of those respondents supporting the project did not have any particular reasons why they did so, while roughly 25 per cent supported it for monetary reasons. For example, one female from Indiana, with a BA and in her mid-40s said:
The 21 individuals who were concerned mentioned various issues (see Table 5). As Table 5 shows, the respondents’ greatest worry was using plutonium in the mission and leaving it on Mars
The federal government is known to waste money. For instance, look at those expensive toilet seats installed in the Pentagon. I mean really this project is probably less than 1 percent of the Pentagon’s budget. I bet you we will learn more from this project than what we will from building another expensive fighter plane—let’s do it.
We have no business polluting the Martian environment with 33 kgs of radioactive plutonium. (male, postgraduate educated, 50–60) I feel uncomfortable with this plutonium business. I mean what happens with the rocket explodes on take off? Also why should we leave the plutonium there? It seems really stupid—we will trash a planet
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
288
Table 5 What concerns do you have regarding the Mars sample return project We should not leave plutonium on Mars We should not use plutonium on this mission Adequate safe guards are needed ‘‘No galaxy terminators’’ We should not bring things back from space to the US
9 5 3 2 2
Table 6 Why are you not concerned about living within a 20-mile vicinity of a lab analysing the Mars sample I am sure it will be safe It will be properly contained You have got to take some risks sometimes
27 17 10
N=54.
N=21.
that we are trying to explore. (female, some college education, 40–50) 5.4.2. Public reactions to the sample once it has returned to Earth In line with previous research findings [11], in general the respondents had even fewer concerns about the sample itself. Of the 70 individuals interviewed only 10 were concerned about it. For example, one male 40–50, with some college said: Why should I be worried about the Mars sample coming back to Earth? Do you know that during the Cold War the Russians had their missiles pointed at us here in Cincinnati as a nearby air force base was part of the strategic air command system? Talk about risks—get some perspective! From the opposite side, one female, high school education, age 50–60 said: I don’t want any alien microbes here on Earth. I mean we have no idea of what they may contain— makes me very worried. My whole family could be wiped out. However, when the respondents were asked to consider whether they would live within a 20-mile radius of a laboratory analysing the Mars sample, 54 individuals indicated they would while 16 said they would not. Reasons provided by the former are listed in Table 6. For example one female, 30–40 with some college education said: They will take proper safety precautions, I am sure of that. I just hope that the sample, when it has been analysed, will be open to the public to visit.
Table 7 Why are you concerned about living within a 20-mile vicinity of a lab analysing the Mars sample? (respondents can have more than one answer) I don’t trust the government I just don’t want this stuff There may be microbes in it that can escape Better safe than sorry Do not know
9 7 5 2 3
N=16.
6. NASA and risk communication In exploratory research of this nature, it is difficult to craft risk communication strategies without significant input from the public [23,41,42]. In an attempt to learn more on how the public felt about the risk communication of space research a question was added at the end of the questionnaire on how the respondents would communicate the risks to the public if they worked on these issues on behalf of NASA. This question sparked a great deal of interest among the respondents. Issues of both process (Table 8) and substance (Table 9) were raised. Within these answers issues of substance were brought up by 49 of the respondents: Most of the issues raised by the respondents have been discussed at some length in the communication media (e.g. [42]). That said a few respondents were rather cynical (keep it all hiddeny) others had highly creative responses. For example, one female, 40 50 age group with postgraduate education said: This Mars sample return program needs to be communicated as widely as possible. What I would do is to encourage people like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods to come forward supporting it. It could also be a McDonalds’ Happy Meal project. That is to say small kids could get happy meals with Mars sample return toys.
Reasons cited by those who were concerned about living near the location where the proposed sample would be analysed are shown in Table 7. One male, high school education, 20–30 age group said:
One male, 50–60 age group with postgraduate education said:
I don’t trust government. Politicians always lie. Why should I trust NASA? We don’t know where they will put the sample.
Let’s open a public information stand regarding the Mars sample return project at Disney World. That would generate considerable attention, and it would
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292 Table 8 If you were NASA how would you best communicate the risks associated with the Mars sample return project (respondents can have more than one answer) Television Print media Make the public aware
37 29 14
N=70. Table 9 Risk communication: substance (respondents can have more than one answer) Be honest Focus on the benefits and not the risks Be open and transparent Keep it all hidden and do not say a thing Start early in the school system I don’t believe that NASA will communicate at all Other
9
289
7.2. The perceived usefulness of the MSR mission It was disheartening to hear many respondents saying that Mars had to be explored as Earth was being destroyed. It would be interesting to do further research on this to determine the factors driving such pessimistic environmental perceptions. Related to this issue, more detailed work on what people perceive as the benefits of space research is needed. For example, what do the public actually mean by ‘‘space research is needed to explore the final frontier’’? 7.3. Lack of concern regarding the MSR
9 8 7 7 5 9
N=49.
guarantee that the youngsters of this country would be informed.
7. Analysis: what can NASA/JPL learn from this research study? In line with previous research findings [11,38], the majority of the respondents were both in favour of space research and the MSR Project. That said several issues are highlighted that should be of concern to NASA. 7.1. The public’s lack of knowledge On the whole the respondents in this study had very little knowledge about the project. Although this should not necessarily be surprising considering there has been little media attention, the issue needs to be addressed, as there is an information vacuum. If NASA does not start to disseminate information about the project, there is a strong chance people will become misinformed. This could result in reluctance or even opposition to it, and NASA would probably, sooner or later, be forced into a retroactive or fire-fighting communication mode, which on the whole generates public distrust [43]. As one respondent said in the interviews: I hope that NASA has more people like you [the author] around as if Hollywood makes this into a disaster movie NASA will have all kinds of problems. (Male, postgraduate education, 40–50) Such an information campaign could include, for example, schools, Disneyworld and McDonalds as suggested by some of the respondents. This would target young people and their families.
On the whole, in line with past research findings [11,38], the respondents in this study did not perceive risks associated with the project—be it the launch of the probe from Florida, or the return and analysis of the soil sample on Earth—as particularly high. Although not made explicit by the respondents, based on the polling results (high approval ratings) one could hypothesize that they saw the risks as low because the respondents felt that NASA was competent and could therefore be trusted. This issue of NASA’s competence is something that has been questioned following two recent Mars mission mishaps, and something that is of concern to the agency. Based on the survey results, however, NASA’s reputation appeared to be largely intact at the time of the survey (as measured by the respondents’ support for a MSR mission). Of the 70 respondents only one mentioned either of the Mars mission mishaps and the respondent did so in a positive light: Yes, NASA did screw up mixing metrics with inches. But I have no worries about the Mars Sample Return mission. If the laboratory will meet the highest international safety standards why should I be worried? (Female, 40–50 years, 4 years college) It should be noted that possibly the main explanation for the public’s lack of concern is that there is so little information about the project currently in the public domain. Several respondents did mention that ‘‘ignorance is bliss’’. Had there been an environmental groupdriven media campaign resulting in social amplification, with NASA on the defensive, the respondents’ reactions would probably have been very different (see, for e.g., [14]). This comes back to the point made earlier, that NASA needs to start communicating about this project before somebody else does. 7.4. The plutonium issue One issue that some respondents were concerned about was the use of plutonium. Why should NASA send up a plutonium-powered probe in the first place and secondly, and more importantly, why should NASA
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
290
leave this plutonium on Mars? This issue does require attention. NASA/JPL will need to make a strong case why plutonium needs to be on board in this space craft, particularly when the British Beagle project will not use plutonium. Secondly, more attention will need to be paid to why the plutonium will be left on Mars. The public reaction to leaving RPS on Mars is likely to be similar to the public reaction to perceived contamination of Antarctica or the deep-sea ocean, that is to say unacceptable [14]. 7.5. The containment of the sample As long as the containment of the Mars sample meets stringent international guidelines (which in this case are likely to be more stringent than CDC-NIH BSL-4 standards) [7], as advocated in the 1997 SSB report, respondents do not appear concerned about bringing back the sample to the USA. What NASA/JPL mean by ‘‘safe containment’’ is something that the agencies need to communicate clearly to the public and others.
8. Initial conclusions This study has looked at public perceptions of risk toward NASA’s and JPL’s proposed MSR project. The study has shown the following: *
*
*
*
A majority of respondents supported space research, seeing it as necessary to find new planets and resources and also to advance our knowledge. Overall the respondents had little knowledge of the MSR project. The knowledge that they did have was generally favourable. After giving respondents information on the proposed project, the majority still supported it. There were few concerns expressed about the project. The concerns raised focused particularly on the use of plutonium.
Acknowledgements I am indebted to the following people who have either provided me with information or commented on earlier versions of this paper: Bill and Eileen Bishop, Baruch Fischhoff (Carnegie Mellon University), Sandra Dawson (Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Cal.tech.), Shirin Elahi (Shell International), Margaret Race (SETI Institute) and the museum staff at the Cincinnati Museum Center. In addition I would like to thank the referees of this journal for their most helpful and insightful comments. The research on which this article is based derives from funding provided by NASA via the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology.
Appendix A. Survey questionnaire Introduction (to be given to perspective respondents in the selected locations) Hello my name is and I am from University of Surrey/Harvard University conducting a study on public perceptions to research. The study is funded by the California Institute of Technology, and all the results will be published in scientific journals. Can we ask you a couple of questions? Part 1: General public perception to space, NASA and the MSR programme. (1) In your view what is space research? What are your feelings about space research? Is it good or bad? Why do you say this? (open ended question) (2) Do you feel that we should be spending money on space research? YES/NO Why do you say this Is it needed? Is it money well spent? (3) Have you ever heard of NASA’s MSR project? YES/NO (4) (If yes) What have you heard? (5) (If yes) In your view, what are the pros and cons of the program? (6) (If yes) Do you have any concern about bringing back samples from Mars to Earth? (7) (If yes) what are your concerns? (8) (If yes) Do you think we should bring back a sample of soil from Mars? Why or why not? (9) (If yes) How should be best store this Mars sample? (10) (If yes) Where would you want to see this Mars sample stored? Why do you say this? (11) (If yes) Would you like to have this sample within a 20-mile vicinity of your home? Why or why not? (12) (If yes) Will there be any overall environment or health impact of sending up a MSR probe to Mars? (13) (If yes) What type of implications will there be? (14) (If yes) If you were NASA, how would you communicate the possible risks associated with the MSR program? Part 2: Description of what JPL/NASA plans to do: (to be read to each respondent) In 2014 NASA may bring back a sample of Mars soil to earth. The most likely location for returning this soil sample will be somewhere in central United States. The MSR vehicle which is likely to be launched from Cape Canaveral Florida and may use up to 33 kg of
ARTICLE IN PRESS R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
plutonium to generate electricity for the spacecraft. If plutonium is used it will stay on Mars and not return to earth. The purpose of this project is to collect soil samples that may reveal evidence of previous existing life on Mars. Confirmation of this possibility would rank as one of the most profound discoveries in human history. Preliminary indications show that Mars is presently lifeless but that there may have been a presence of water on the planet. The soil sample, which has a small chance of containing some form of life, once brought back to earth will be stored and analysed in an ultra secure faculty meeting the highest type international safety standards. The cost of this project, financed by NASA (with possible cooperation from the French, Italian and other space agencies) is projected to be approximately $1 billion. Part 3: (15) Based on this information, what is your view of NASA’s MSR project? Do you support it or oppose it? Why? (16) In your view, what are the pros and cons of the program? (17) Do you have any concern about bringing samples back from Mars to earth? (18) What are your concerns? (19) Do you think that we should bring a sample of soil back from Mars? Why or why not? (20) How should we best store this Mars sample? (21) Would you like to have this Mars sample within a 20-mile vicinity of your home? Why or why not? (22) Where would you want to see the Mars sample stored? Why do you say this? (23) Do you think there will be any overall environment or health impact of sending up a MSR probe to Mars? (24) What type of implications do you think there would be? (25) If you were NASA, how would you communicate the possible risks associated with the MSR program? Part 4: Background questions (26) Age Under 20 20–30 30–40 50–60 70–80 (27) Do you support environmental group such on Greenpeace? (28) Do you have children? YES NO (29) How much education have you had Junior High High School Some College
291
4 years College More than 4 years College (30) Did you find this study interesting?
References [1] David L. Europe boards the Mars express. Space.Com.; 22 May 2000. [2] Moomaw B. Mars in the early 21st century. Spacedaily.Com; 6 November 2000. [3] Sorid D. Mars Express: Europe takes the lead. Space.Com; 28 June 2000. [4] Space News. Reconsidering Mars sample return; 30th October 2000. p. 22. [5] Broad WJ. Reports of dead Mars are greatly exaggerated. New York Times; 25 July 2000. p. D1, D4. [6] Martian chronicles. Economist; 7 April 2001. p. 111–3. [7] Lofstedt RE. Good and bad examples of siting and building biosafety level 4 laboratories: a study of Winnipeg, Galveston and Etobicoke. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2002;93:47–66. [8] MacGregor D, Slovic P. The planetary exploration survey: what society members think about planetary protection. Planetary Report 1995;15(2):4–6. [9] Race MS. Anticipating the reaction: public concern about sample return missions. Planetary Report 1994;14:20–2. [10] Race MS. Mars sample return and planetary protection in a public context. Advanced Space Research 1998;22(3):391–9. [11] Race MS, MacGregor DG. Integrating public perspectives in sample return planning. Advances in Space Research; 2001, in press. [12] Space Studies Board (National Research Council). Biological contamination of mars: issues and recommendations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992. [13] Foley TM. NASA prepares for protests over nuclear system launch on shuttle in October. Aviation Week and Space Technology 1989;26:83–7. . [14] Lofstedt RE, Renn O. The Brent Spar controversy: an example of risk communication gone wrong. Risk Analysis 1997;17(2):131–6. [15] Space Studies Board (National Research Council). Mars sample return: issues and recommendations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997. [16] Sterns PM, Tennen LI. Regulation of space activities and transscience: public perceptions and policy considerations. Space Policy 1995;11(3):181–92. [17] Lofstedt RE. Lay perspectives of climate change in Sweden. Energy and Environment, 1992;3(2):161–75. [18] Lofstedt RE. Lay perspectives concerning global climate change in Austria. Energy and Environment 1993;4(2):140–54. [19] Lofstedt RE. The role of trust in the North Blackforest: an evaluation of a citizen panel project. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 1999;10(1):10–30. [20] White GF. Human adjustment to floods: a geographical approach to the flood in the United States. Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago Press; 1945. [21] Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risk and benefits. Policy Studies 1978;9:127–52. [22] Slovic P. Risk perception. Science 1987;236:280–5. [23] National Research Council. Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989. [24] Stern PC. Learning through conflict: a realistic strategy for risk communication. Policy Sciences 1991;24:99–119. [25] Adler RS, Pittle RD. Cajolery or command: are educational campaigns an adequate substitute for regulation? Yale Journal on Regulation 1984;1:159–93.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 292
R.E. Lofstedt / Space Policy 19 (2003) 283–292
[26] Cvetkovich GT, Keren GB, Earle TC. Prescriptive considerations for risk communications. Paper presented at the meeting of the international research group on risk communication; 1986. [27] Slovic P, MacGregor DG. Perceptions of planetary protection: preliminary survey analysis. Eugene, OR: Decision Research; 1996. [28] Chess C, Salomone KL, Hance BJ, Saville A. Results of national symposium on risk communication: next steps for government agencies. Risk Analysis 1995;15:115–25. [29] Chess C, Salomone KL, Hance BJ. Improving risk communication in government: research priorities. Risk analysis 1995;15: 127–35. [30] Kasperson RE, Palmlund I. Evaluating risk communication. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT. (Eds.), Effective risk communication: the role and responsibility of government and non-government organisations. New York: Plenum; 1987, pp. 143–158. [31] Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis 1995;15: 137–45. [32] Leiss W. Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1996;545:85–94. [33] Maharik M, Fischhoff B. The risks of using nuclear energy sources in space: some lay activists’ perceptions. Risk Analysis 1992;12:383–92.
[34] Maharik M, Fischhoff B. Risk knowledge and risk attitudes regarding nuclear energy sources in space. Risk Analysis 1993;13:345–53. [35] Maharik M, Fischhoff B. Contrasting perceptions of the risks of using nuclear energy sources in space. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1993;13:243–50. [36] Maharik M, Fischhoff B. Public views of using nuclear energy sources in space missions. Space Policy 1993;9:99–108. [37] Arvai JL. Evaluating NASA’s role in risk communication process surrounding space policy decisions. Space Policy 2000;16:61–9. [38] MacGregor D, Slovic P, Race MS. Brief report: lay and expert perceptions of planetary protection. Eugene, OR: Decision Research; 1996. [39] Gallup Organization. Despite recent high visibility, Americans not enthusiastic about spending more money on space program. The Gallup Program; 28 July 1999. [40] National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators-2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation; 2000. [41] National Research Council. Understanding risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996. [42] Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (Eds). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1995. [43] Powell D, Leiss W. Mad cows and mother’s milk: the perils of poor risk communication. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press; 1997. [44] Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution. Setting environmental standards. London: Stationary Office; 1998.