Skip to main content

Blog Archives

Doomers, Bloomers, and Zoomers: Clinton & Hoffman Weigh in on AI’s Future

Where do you stand on AI—optimist or skeptic? A high-stakes conversation on AI’s promise, risks, and the global race for leadership in this game-changing technology.

Published January 31, 2025

By Brooke Grindlinger, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer

LinkedIn co-founder and bestselling author Reid Hoffman (right) in conversation with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (left) at 92NY in New York City on January 28, 2025, discussing his new book Superagency: What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future.

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping nearly every aspect of human life. From medicine to transportation, education to industry, AI is not just a tool; it’s an evolving partner in human progress. But what does this transformation mean for individuals, society, and the growing geopolitical tensions between nations vying for dominance in AI technology? These questions were at the heart of a recent conversation between former US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn and co-author—with tech writer Greg Beato—of the new book Superagency: What Could Possibly Go Right with Our AI Future.

At its core, Superagency presents an optimistic vision of AI as a general-purpose technology that amplifies human agency. This concept was brought to life for the evening’s audience through a video appearance by Reid AI—Hoffman’s digital twin—who, with the enthusiasm of a tireless press agent, championed Superagency and its vision. “Superagency describes not only how we as individuals get these superpowers from technology, but also how we benefit from a society in which millions of others have these superpowers.” This perspective challenges alarmist narratives around AI, instead framing it as a transformative force, much like past technological revolutions such as the printing press and the automobile.

AI as an Opportunity: Learning from the Past

History teaches us that every major technological advancement—from the steam engine to the internet—has been met with both excitement and trepidation. AI is no different. Hoffman pointed out that skepticism surrounding AI today mirrors historical anxieties: “When, for example, you go back to the printing press, the dialogue around the printing press was actually very similar to the dialogue around AI. It was things like ‘This will spread a lot of misinformation. This will destroy our institutions and our ability to discern truth.’” And yet, despite the upheavals they caused, these innovations propelled society forward. The challenge, Hoffman argues, is to navigate AI’s development thoughtfully, ensuring its benefits reach the many rather than the few.

The AI Spectrum: Doomers, Gloomers, Bloomers, and Zoomers

In Superagency, Hoffman describes a spectrum of attitudes toward AI. On one end are the Doomers, who believe AI is an existential threat that could bring about catastrophic consequences. Next are the Gloomers, who are skeptical and advocate for stringent regulatory controls but stop short of outright rejection. The Zoomers, by contrast, are those who champion rapid AI expansion without much concern for potential risks and are often anti-regulation. Finally, Hoffman identifies himself among the Bloomers, a group that believes AI, when properly guided by intelligent risk management, can be an overwhelmingly positive force for humanity. “One of the things that we argue for, as part of the case for optimism—being Bloomers—is to say you don’t expect perfection in the beginning,” Hoffman explained.

During their conversation, Hoffman asked Secretary Clinton where she saw herself on this spectrum. Her response was thoughtful: “Well, I think I’m a Boomer who is somewhere between a Bloomer and a Gloomer, because on the one hand, I really appreciate the optimism. I find that very attractive. We should learn as we do, learn as we go, make adjustments…Although I do worry about all the people who don’t see the curb and drive off over the cliff.” Her remark underscores the need for both enthusiasm and caution—embracing AI’s potential while ensuring that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent harm. Clinton continued, “We know a lot now. We don’t know anywhere near what we’re going to know, and maybe there are some kinds of guardrails that we would want without losing the optimism, because I want this country to dominate AI.”

Guardrails for Progress: The Role of Regulation

While AI’s potential is vast, so are the risks. Secretary Clinton raised a crucial concern: “If you look at the aggregate, is it going to be more difficult, given our political and social and economic environment, to say, ‘Hey, wait a minute, we’ve learned enough that maybe we should put on this guardrail. Maybe this should be a certain standard we try to meet.’”

Hoffman acknowledged the difficulty of balancing innovation with regulation but emphasized that responsible AI development requires ongoing assessment rather than outright restriction. “The attempt to hold any kind of large system to zero error is an attempt to stop the future,” he noted. Instead, he advocates for an iterative approach—adjusting regulations as AI evolves, rather than stalling progress in the name of perfection.

Hoffman compared this process to the development of the automobile. Early cars lacked essential safety features, but over time, society introduced refinements—first bumpers, then seatbelts, then airbags—to make vehicles safer without halting progress. We have to start driving before we realize what safeguards we need. AI, he argued, should follow the same evolutionary path, improving with real-world use and responsive adjustments.

The Global AI Race: Maintaining US Leadership

One of the most urgent topics in the conversation was the global competition in AI development, particularly between the United States and China. Secretary Clinton emphasized that the US cannot afford to fall behind: “I do worry that if we don’t have an optimistic, full speed ahead approach to it, that we will get outmaneuvered, that we will find ourselves in a subordinate position and that subordinate position could be one of great risk and potential danger. I still would rather have us struggling to try to make the right decisions than seeding ground to rogue states, to highly organized states, to criminal organizations, to rogue technologists.”

Hoffman echoed this sentiment, stressing that America’s strength lies in its innovative culture and entrepreneurial spirit. “We do it by the American entrepreneurial networks and the creativity, but we have to go at that, and we have to be saying that’s what we want.”

Recent developments highlight the stakes of this competition. Just days before this conversation, Chinese AI company DeepSeek made headlines with its advancements in large language models, demonstrating China’s accelerating capabilities in AI development. The rise of DeepSeek underscores the urgency for the US to not only invest in cutting-edge AI research but also establish ethical frameworks that ensure responsible deployment of the technology. This competition is not just about economic dominance; it’s about setting standards for ethical AI use worldwide. The key to maintaining leadership, Hoffman argued, is to ensure that AI development remains aligned with democratic values and responsible governance. If the US leads with innovation and responsibility, it can shape AI’s trajectory for the benefit of society at large.

AI as a Catalyst for Global Stability

Beyond economic and technological dominance, AI could play a significant role in shaping global stability. Hoffman suggested that AI-driven economic and educational advancements could reduce geopolitical tensions by fostering growth in underdeveloped regions. “When people think their future is likely to be better than their present, in terms of building things, they tend to go to war less,” he noted. If AI can be harnessed to improve healthcare, education, and job opportunities in struggling economies, it has the potential to serve as a stabilizing force rather than a disruptive one. This approach shifts the conversation from AI as a competition to AI as a tool for global peace and cooperation.

In contrast, during the discussion, an audience member raised concerns about AI’s potential use in warfare. Secretary Clinton acknowledged the risks, stating, “A lot of weapons of war are becoming more and more autonomous. And so we’re going to see all kinds of very dangerous weapons in the hands of all kinds of people that may or may not have the values that they should to be entrusted with that kind of destruction.” Hoffman reinforced this point, cautioning that AI’s offensive capabilities could be destabilizing: “One of the challenges with AI is that it’s inherently a little bit more of an offensive weapon and has the tendency to say ‘use it or lose your advantage’”, which is most worrisome in terms of a potential arms race dynamic. The exchange highlighted the delicate balance of leveraging AI for progress while preventing its potential misuse in global conflicts.

A Call to be AI “Curious”

As AI continues to evolve, engagement and understanding are critical. Rather than passively observing its impact, scientists, policymakers, and the public must take an active role in shaping AI’s future. As Hoffman puts it: “Move to being AI curious. It doesn’t matter if you are also at the same time AI uncertain, AI skeptical, AI fearful—but add AI curiosity into it.” The AI revolution is here. The question is not whether AI will change our world, but how we choose to participate and shape that change. By fostering curiosity, implementing smart regulations, and ensuring equitable opportunities, we can make AI a tool for empowerment rather than disruption.

For those eager to deepen their understanding of AI technologies in the healthcare sector, including leveraging AI for drug discovery, medical imaging, mental health, equity, and affordability, we invite you to join us at the HealthNext AI Summit 2025, March 3-4, 2025 in New York City. Register now with promo code HLTHNXTNYAS for 10% off!

Interested in hearing more from Reid Hoffman? Tune in to Hoffman’s March 2024 conversation with Academy President and CEO Nicholas Dirks about Hoffman‘s prior book, ‘Impromptu: Amplifying Our Humanity Through AI‘. Available On-Demand until March 27, 2025.

Public Health Peril: The Fungus Among Us

A panel discussion from the South by Southwest event.

Think fungal infections are just annoying skin irritations like athlete’s foot and jock itch? Think again. The rise of antifungal resistance means the game has changed. What was once a surefire treatment is now uncertain, and severe, life-threatening fungal diseases are on the rise.

Published May 22, 2024

By Brooke Grindlinger, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer

Panelists Paul Verweij, MD, FECMM (left), Professor of Clinical Mycology at Radboud University Medical Center of Expertise for Mycology; Tom Chiller, MD, MPHTM (center left), Chief of the Mycotic Diseases Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and John Rex, MD, FACP (center right), Chief Medical Officer at the antifungal biotech F2G, Ltd.; speak with public health journalist and author Maryn McKenna (right) at SXSW on March 11, 2024. The panelists discussed the real-life challenges posed by fungi and why fungal infections are becoming harder to treat.

Fungi are everywhere: in the soil, on our skin, and in the air we breathe. They give us the cheese on our burgers and the beer and wine we love. Despite their benefits, fungi aren’t always our friends. Every day, we inhale up to 100,000 or more fungal spores—our immune system usually keeps infections at bay. Yet, out of the estimated 2-11 million fungal species, about 200 can make us sick. On March 11, 2024, the South by Southwest Conference panel “Will Fungi Be the Last of Us?,” moderated by public health journalist and author Maryn McKenna, explored how fighting harmful fungal species is a growing public health challenge.

The Agricultural Connection: How Fungicides Fuel Drug Resistance

While we may inhale numerous fungi, our primary defense against fungal infections is our body temperature—most fungi can’t survive the heat of our lungs and prefer cooler environments. However, certain fungal species like Candida auris and Aspergillus thrive at human body temperature and can cause severe disease in hospitalized patients with weakened immune systems. Panelist Paul Verweij, MD, FECMM, Professor of Clinical Mycology at Radboud University Medical Center of Expertise for Mycology, highlighted the threat of Candida auris: “This is a new yeast, which is emerging, and has spread all over the world since 1996. One of the problems with (it) is that it is drug resistant.”

Dr. Verweij explained that exposure to agricultural azoles, chemical fungicides used on food crops, has driven this fungus to develop resistance to azoles. “The problem we face in hospitals is that we use the same type of drugs to treat our patients,” Verweij lamented.

The panel highlighted the urgent need for a comprehensive approach to the development of agricultural fungicides that do not have harmful ramifications for human health. Panelist John Rex, MD, FACP, Chief Medical Officer at the antifungal biotech F2G, Ltd., cited a 2023 concept paper issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency and developed in collaboration with the US Department of Health and Human Services, the US Department of Agriculture, and offices within the White House Executive Office of the President.

The paper, titled Concept for a Framework to Assess the Risk to the Effectiveness of Human and Animal Drugs Posed by Certain Antibacterial or Antifungal Pesticides, sought public feedback on potential solutions, research, or mitigation approaches to reduce the spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Panelist Tom Chiller, MD, MPHTM, Chief of the Mycotic Diseases Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added, “The key is that we’re bringing groups together that don’t traditionally talk. We need to recognize that we each have problems that are going to be solved with these medicines. But how do we do it together so that we don’t affect that critical treatment [for a] patient with a fungal disease?”

Rising Temperatures, Rising Threats: Fungi in a Changing Climate

Dr. Chiller also emphasized the impact of climate change on the evolution of fungal species. “Fungi live out in the environment. If the environment changes—and climate change is causing environmental changes—the fungi have to adapt. They are going to try to tolerate higher temperatures. We need to understand that more.” Chiller pointed to Valley Fever, caused by the soil-based fungus Coccidioides: “It’s mainly in the Southwest [of the US], but now we know that the geographic area of this fungus is spreading. I have to think that climate change is playing a role.”

Closer Cousins Than You Think

Dr. Rex highlighted a critical difference in treating bacterial versus fungal infections. “You’ve heard of things like penicillin, sulfa [drugs], and erythromycin. There are at least a dozen completely different kinds of treatments for bacterial infections.” In contrast, Rex noted, “for fungi, there are only three major classes. The reason …. is that, believe it or not, one of your closest cousins is the fungi. We’re quite closely related, genetically. To find something that just kills the fungus and not the person, that’s hard. There are very few novel classes [of antifungal drugs] and each one we find is a precious jewel.”

Rapid diagnosis of fungal infection also remains challenging. Patient symptoms are often non-specific, and the sensitivity and specificity of available tests vary widely. Dr. Verweij shared his clinical experiences: “With only two classes of drug treatment available for Aspergillus infection, resistance to one treatment leaves the physician with just one drug to administer to the patient.” He highlighted the severe toxic side effects and the limited reach of these drugs. “If the infection spreads from the lung to the brain, then it’s extremely difficult to treat, and you can end up with an untreatable infection.”

Reviving Antimicrobial Development: The Promise of the PASTEUR Act

“Over the past decade, we’ve had several new antibiotics get approved, and then the companies go bankrupt,” Dr. Rex noted. He emphasized the importance of creating a sustainable financial model for developing and distributing new antimicrobials. “I’m very concerned that the ecosystem of people who know how to invent these drugs is drying up,” he warned. Dr. Rex shared his 15-year involvement in the development of the Pioneering Antimicrobial Subscriptions To End Upsurging Resistance Act of 2023 (PASTEUR Act).

This bill, re-introduced in the US Senate in April 2023, aims to stimulate innovative drug development, improve the appropriate use of antibiotics, and ensure domestic availability of critical need antimicrobial medicines to prevent AMR from becoming the next global pandemic. The PASTEUR Act proposes an innovative payment model where the US federal government invests $6 billion over 10 years in novel antibiotics and antifungals through installment payments. In return, developers would provide their drugs free of charge to government programs once available. This initiative is designed to foster much-needed investment and prepare the nation’s health care system for the increasing threat of antibiotic- and antifungal-resistant infections.

Antifungal Development in the AI Era

Conference discussion also centered on the pervasive influence of artificial intelligence (AI) across diverse industries and its role in antifungal development naturally emerged. Dr. Rex emphasized the immense potential of AI tools in assessing the toxicity risks associated with promising molecules identified during drug development. He noted, “That has, so far, evaded all simple prediction tools.”

Learn more about the dual nature of fungi—beneficial allies and deadly foes—at the July 18, 2024 hybrid Academy event featuring a conversation with mycologist, immunologist, and author Arturo Casadevall, MD, PhD, about his new book, What if Fungi Win?

Women’s Health 2.0: The Artificial Intelligence Era

A panel discussion from the South by Southwest event.

Charting the evolution of women’s healthcare in the AI era, illuminating the promise and challenges of predictive tech to close the health gender gap.

Published April 12, 2024

By Brooke Grindlinger, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer

Panelists Sara Reistad-Long (left), Healthcare Strategist at Empowered; Alicia Jackson, PhD, Founder and CEO of Evernow; Christina Jenkins, MD, General Partner at Convergent Ventures; and Robin Berzin, MD, Founder and CEO of Parsley Health speak at SXSW on March 9, 2024. The panelists discussed the promise and risks that AI and predictive tech carry as a path to closing the healthcare gender gap.

Less than 2% of global healthcare research and development is dedicated to female-specific conditions beyond cancer, as was starkly revealed in the January 2024 World Economic Forum and McKinsey Health Institute report, “Closing the Women’s Health Gap: A $1 Trillion Opportunity to Improve Lives and Economies.” Rectifying this disparity holds the potential to inject over $1 trillion annually into the global economy by 2040 through bolstered female workforce participation.

In February 2024, America’s First Lady Jill Biden unveiled a $100 million federal funding initiative for women’s health research, marking a significant milestone for the White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research intended to fundamentally change how the US approaches and funds research in this area. On March 9, 2024, the South by Southwest Conference hosted a pivotal panel discussion titled “Can AI Close the Health Gender Gap?” moderated by Sara Reistad-Long, a Healthcare Strategist at Empowered. This gathering of clinicians, digital health tech executives, and investors delved into the transformative potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and predictive technology in mitigating gender disparities in healthcare.

Women’s Health Beyond Reproduction

The panelists began by establishing a shared definition of ‘women’s health.’ Historically, women’s health has been narrowly defined as reproductive health, primarily concerning the female reproductive organs such as the uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and to some extent, breasts. Yet, as panelist Christina Jenkins, MD, General Partner at Convergent Ventures, aptly pointed out, the scope of women’s health transcends this narrow scope.

“There’s so much more to women’s health than that,” she emphasized, advocating for a broader understanding. “We consider ‘women’s health’ as a specific practice… focused on things that are unique to women, which are those reproductive organs and [associated conditions], but also conditions that disproportionately… or differently affect women.” She elaborated with examples ranging from autoimmune diseases to conditions like migraine, colon cancer, and variances in women’s reactions to asthma medications.

Overlooked and Underserved: Women’s Health Blind Spots

The historical exclusion of women from health research and clinical trials has perpetuated the flawed assumption that women’s bodies and health outcomes mirror those of men, neglecting their unique biological and medical complexities. “Women were not included in medical research until 1993. Women are diagnosed later in over 700 conditions. Some of our most pressing chronic conditions that are on the rise take 5-7 years to be diagnosed—like autoimmune conditions—and 80% of them occur in women,” observed panelist Robin Berzin, MD, Founder and CEO of digital health company Parsley Health.

AI’s Promise in Closing the Research to Practice Gap

Alicia Jackson, PhD, Founder and CEO of digital health company Evernow, which is focused on women’s health at ages 40+, has spearheaded groundbreaking research that has yielded one of the most extensive and diverse datasets on menopause and perimenopause. This dataset encompasses a multifaceted understanding, ranging from the manifestation of bodily symptoms during these life stages to the impact of variables such as race, ethnicity, income levels, hysterectomy status, and concurrent medications on patient outcomes.

Furthermore, Jackson and her team have identified treatment protocols associated with both short-term relief and long-term health benefits. Despite possessing this wealth of information, Jackson posed a critical question: “I now have this massive dataset, but how do I actually get it into clinical practice to impact the woman that I am seeing tomorrow?” “There’s a huge opportunity for us to leverage clinical data in new ways to give us insights to personalize care,” added Berzin.

From Data Deluge to Personalized Care

Despite the increasing availability of rich research data on women’s health, significant challenges persist in promptly translating this data into effective patient care. With over a million new peer-reviewed publications in biomedicine added annually to the PubMed database, the sheer volume overwhelms individual healthcare providers. “That’s an impossible sum of research for any individual doctor…to digest and use,” observed Berzin. “New information takes 17 years to make its way from publication into medical education, and then even longer into clinical practice,” she lamented. “What I’m excited about when it comes to AI and closing the gender gap is the opportunity for us to close the research gap.

What AI will let all of us do is take in a lot of the data sets that have been unwieldy in the past and leverage them to personalize care. The rapidity and pace at which we can begin to gain insights from the data, which is otherwise like drinking from a fire hose, represents an opportunity for us to catch up [on] that gender gap.” Jackson added, “AI gives me a time machine…to immediately take those results and apply them and impact women today.”

AI Nurse Anytime, Anywhere

The conversation shifted to AI’s potential to address the critical shortage of healthcare providers in the United States. Berzin highlighted the systemic issues, stating, “We don’t have enough doctors. We are not training enough doctors. Nor are we importing enough doctors. We have really big disparities in terms of where the doctors are.” Jackson expanded on the role of AI beyond tackling the provider shortfall and fast-tracking diagnostic processes, emphasizing its potential to facilitate culturally sensitive care.

She emphasized that AI could go beyond delivering data and outcomes; it’s about understanding the nuances of cultural preferences in healthcare delivery. Jackson noted that women want more than just symptom discussion; they want to delve into the emotional and relational impacts of navigating the healthcare system. “Right now, no traditional healthcare system has time beyond that 15-minute appointment to listen and to understand.” However, AI offers the possibility of unlimited time for patients to share their experiences.

With the assistance of AI, patients can access personalized care on their terms, allowing for a more enriching and fulfilling healthcare experience. Jackson continued, “If you have a $9 per hour AI nurse that can take that entire [patient] history, that [the patient can] call up in the middle of the night, on your commute to work, and just continue to add to that [history]…now you’ve created this very, very rich experience. Suddenly, it’s healthcare on your terms.”

Women’s Patient Empowerment Through AI

In addition to its potential to enhance healthcare accessibility and availability, AI emerged as a catalyst for empowering women to take charge of their healthcare journey. Jackson underscored a prevalent issue in women’s healthcare: the need for multiple doctor visits before receiving a correct diagnosis. She highlighted AI’s transformative potential in bridging this gap by empowering women to input their symptoms into AI platforms like ChatGPT, potentially integrating data from wearable devices, and receiving informed guidance—such as urgent care recommendations—immediately. This represents a significant stride in patient empowerment.

AI’s Achilles’ Heel

However, Jenkins cautioned against the pitfalls of AI, citing the case of Babylon Health, a UK-based digital health service provider. She recounted a troubling incident where the Babylon Health AI platform, during a system test, misdiagnosed a woman experiencing symptoms of a heart attack as having an anxiety attack, while advising a man with the same symptoms and medical history to seek immediate medical attention for a heart attack.

“This is what happens when you build something well-meaning on top of bad data,” cautioned Jenkins. She went on to emphasize the critical need to use real-world evidence to mitigate gender biases entrenched in clinical research data. “There is an imperative, not just for the algorithms to eliminate bias, but to make sure that the data sources are there. That’s why we have to use real-world evidence instead of clinical research.”

Learn more about the opportunities and challenges surrounding the integration of AI-driven technologies into the healthcare system at the upcoming Academy conference: The New Wave of AI in Healthcare 2024, May 1-2, 2024 in New York.

Rule Makers and Breakers in the Space Race for Off-Earth Resources

A panel discussion from the South by Southwest event.

From space junk to mining critical minerals on the Moon, this South by Southwest panel explored ambiguities in the governance of space ventures.

Published March 28, 2024

By Brooke Grindlinger, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer

Panelists Monique M. Chism, PhD (left), Under Secretary for Education at the Smithsonian Institution; Aida Araissi, Founder and CEO of the Bilateral Chamber of Commerce; Kirsten Bartok Touw, aerospace, space, and defense tech investor and Co-Founder and Managing Partner of New Vista Capital; and A.J. Crabill, National Director of Governance for the Council of the Great City Schools; speak at SXSW on March 11, 2024. The panelists discussed the need for a cohesive and forward-looking governance approach to the business of space, to ensure equitable access and opportunity for all in this growing industry.

Space exploration not only signifies a pioneering frontier for deepening our comprehension of the universe but also serves as a pivotal gateway to unprecedented resources, technologies, and job opportunities, poised to emerge both on and beyond Earth’s bounds. What was once exclusively the domain of national governments has now evolved into a thriving commercial industry, fueled by the burgeoning participation of the private sector in space exploration. To guarantee the safety, accessibility, and positive impact of space exploration, it’s imperative to develop evolving governance mechanisms that effectively oversee resource allocation, foster international collaboration, prioritize safety and security, address ethical dilemmas, and tackle the escalating challenges of space debris and traffic management. On March 11, 2024, a diverse assembly of space investors, public and private stakeholders, ethicists, and enthusiasts congregated at Austin’s South by Southwest Conference to glean insights from the panel session titled ‘Governance Beyond Gravity: Unity & Exploration,’ helmed by Dr. Monique M. Chism, Under Secretary for Education at the Smithsonian Institution.

Satellite Superhighway: Redefining Space Access

Amid our captivation by the human presence aboard the International Space Station, the allure of Mars exploration, and the awe-inspiring vistas from the James Webb Space Telescope, it’s easy to overlook the bustling thoroughfare of satellites silently navigating Earth’s orbit. Remarkably, data from the tracking site Orbiting Now reveals a staggering count of over 9,600 satellites currently overhead, with SpaceX‘s Starlink network alone accounting for more than 6,000 of them.

The burgeoning satellite network not only amplifies global connectivity and intelligence capabilities but also signifies a democratization of space access, with over 70 nations, in conjunction with numerous private sector entities, having effectively launched satellites into low Earth orbit, endowing their operators with advanced communication and intelligence resources. The acquisition of precise Earth observation data, down to the millimeter level, fuels unmatched insights, opportunities, and competition.

Fellow panelist, Kirsten Bartok Touw, an aerospace, space, and defense tech investor and Co-Founder and Managing Partner of New Vista Capital underscored, “The concept of national security and protecting your country’s and your allies’ access to space, and all that is up there, is incredibly important.” However, Bartok Touw proposed that this unique and specialized business sector should not solely reside within the purview of governments. “We need to work with commercial companies—they iterate, they move faster, they design.” Beyond intelligence applications, Bartok Touw highlighted the numerous commercial opportunities in space, ranging from asteroid and lunar mining for rare Earth minerals to satellite monitoring for methane leaks, and even drug discovery, which can occur at an accelerated pace due to the absence of gravity in space. “This is a race for unexplored capabilities and areas. The first companies up there to lay claim are going to be the furthest and most advanced.”

Space Governance in Flux: Challenges and Opportunities

In the absence of established human settlements in space or local space governments, the space community navigates a complex web of governance policies crafted over decades. These include the foundational Outer Space Treaty of 1967, ratified by 112 nations, the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, colloquially known as the ‘Moon Agreement,’ ratified by a mere 18 nations, and the recent non-binding 2020 proposal, the Artemis Accords, which serves as an international legal framework aimed at orchestrating the peaceful exploration and utilization of space resources.

Panelist A.J. Crabill, National Director of Governance for the Council of the Great City Schools in Washington DC offered insights into the pivotal role of space, and space governance, in shaping the future of our society. “That future requires stepping out of our birthing cradle and being able to access resources beyond those that are terrestrial. However, the moment you have a lot of people doing that you’re immediately going to run into conflict. That’s when the need for systems of governance come into place. How do we protect both people and resources [and] how do we collaborate effectively around services that are needed? All of those become way more complicated outside of Earth’s atmosphere.”

Bartok Touw flagged that prior space governance policies relied on country-to-country agreements. But today, independent commercial operators like SpaceX, which launch and lease satellites for a variety of government and private entities, can limit the access that a country or corporation has in their region to space-based communications. “The state-to-state agreements that we had earlier [are] being disrupted today because now it’s not just country-to-country… it’s commercial entity-to-commercial entity. I would love to live in a world where all these nations and commercial entities could agree, but that is not the case we’re in.”

The Lack of an Enforcement Mechanism

Panelist Aida Araissi, Founder and CEO of the Bilateral Chamber of Commerce, injected some optimism into the discussion, remarking, “The countries that are at the forefront of accessing the Moon are [the United States], the Soviet Union, China, and India. It’s an exciting time.” However, as humanity’s quest to return to the Moon and journey to Mars intensifies, Araissi raised concerns about the governance of commercial activities, such as lunar mining. “Exactly whose jurisdiction is that, and how are we going to regulate that? That is the key question.” Bartok Touw echoed, “That is the problem, there isn’t an enforcing mechanism.”

Crabill adopted a pragmatic stance, invoking the satirical adage, “He who has the gold makes the rules.”  He elaborated, “Unfortunately, we see this time and time [again] when we’re looking at governance systems—school systems, states, cities, nations—whoever has the keys of authority…the access to resources, does wind up making the rules. If we want space governance to follow our values, we have to be there first in a powerful way, establish industry, and establish resources. And then our values of bringing other people in coalition can be what carries the day.”  

Reflecting on the evolution of space governance, Crabill noted that reaching consensus was easier during the theoretical discussions of the 1950s and 1960s. However, as society approaches the technological reality of widespread space access, the complexities of governance intensify. “Governing the imminent is much more complicated than governing the hypothetical.”

Learn more about the ethical, legal, and social issues relevant to space exploration and long-term human settlement in space at the upcoming event featuring a conversation with space ethicist, astrophysicist, and author Erika Nesvold: Off-Earth: Ethical Questions and Quandaries for Living in Outer Space.

Staff Spotlight: Brooke Grindlinger, PhD

Headshot of Brooke Grindlinger

This series provides an opportunity to get up close and personal with the people who power The New York Academy of Sciences.

Tell us what you do for the Academy.

As the Chief Scientific Officer at The New York Academy of Sciences, I lead the scientific development and growth of a diverse range of scientific programs, courses, and initiatives that support scientists-in-training, STEM professionals, as well as engage and educate science enthusiasts. By fostering collaborations among academia, industry, and government I help to drive advances in science and innovation for the betterment of society.

I also champion women in STEM, host thought-provoking conversations with scientific changemakers, and share my expertise through public speaking and writing to emphasize the pivotal role of science in shaping a brighter future for all.

What has — so far — been your proudest accomplishment working for the Academy?

Brooke at the Inaugural Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists, Israel

Undoubtedly, collaborating with billionaire philanthropist and industrialist Sir Leonard Blavatnik to launch the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists program in the United Kingdom and Israel, offering the largest unrestricted prizes for early-career scientists. This program supports pioneering young scientists doing research in areas such as climate change mitigation, pandemic preparedness, sustainable farming, renewable energy storage, mental health treatments, cybersecurity, and water purification.

It has been incredibly rewarding to help scientists at that critical — and often vulnerable — juncture in their career when they are transitioning from trainee to lead investigator. It’s a time when recognition and funding can have perhaps the greatest impact. I often have the privilege of calling the award recipients to surprise them with the news that they have won. It’s a great day at the office when someone bursts into joyful tears in response to your phone call. Helping others succeed is one of the best ways to leave your mark on the world.

There are also quiet moments, one-on-one with someone, that have made me proud of the work I do. I love to host engaging conversations with dynamite scientists about their latest discoveries, and in doing so hope to elicit in audiences the same awe and wonder that I feel about the science of the world around us. A high school-aged girl approached me during a coffee break at a public scientific symposium that I hosted in London in 2022. She grabbed my elbow and said, “You are so inspirational.” I see every second of my work as an opportunity to be a mentor and role model for aspiring young women who harbor dreams of becoming scientists.

Tell us about your STEM journey. How did you first become interested in science? How did you get to where you are today?

As an undergraduate student at university, I attended a lecture that had a reputation for turning stomachs, so much so that students were advised not to eat breakfast beforehand. Students were not required to take notes, just to watch and listen. What followed was a graphic slide show showing how infectious diseases can ravage the human body.

I left the lecture hall wondering: with all the organisms around us, on us, and inside us, how is it that we wake up essentially “healthy” every day? I was immediately hooked on the field of microbiology. As a graduate student in my native Australia, I studied the organism that causes tuberculosis, to develop a more effective vaccine against this now highly antibiotic-resistant infectious lung disease.

During college and graduate school, there were no female lecturers or women leading research labs in my field. This absence of female role models, mentors, and sponsors in scientific research made it challenging for me to envision a future for myself in the field. Back then, the typical paths for postgraduate research scientists were either securing a tenure-track faculty position at a university, combining research and teaching, or transitioning into the pharmaceutical or medical device industry.

Looking back, I didn’t have the inside scoop on alternative career options for PhD scientists beyond the lab. If I didn’t pursue a traditional academic career path I worried: Would I still be “a real scientist”? Unlike most early-career scientists, I found more satisfaction in writing my research thesis than in conducting bench research. Crafting the narrative, exploring the known and unknown, and revealing how my work contributed to a larger puzzle were my true passions. That was my signal that science communications might be my alternative career path.

I relocated from Australia to New York City in 2001 and joined the Editorial Board of The Journal of Clinical Investigation, a prestigious medical journal. As Science Editor, my responsibility was to identify, evaluate and solicit groundbreaking research from universities for publication. I had to swiftly shift from a niche science expert to a generalist, evaluating the work of fellow scientists and swiftly grasping cutting-edge research and treatments for many different human diseases. It was a remarkable chance to expand my biomedicine expertise, cultivate a global network of expert scientists, build my insider knowledge, and contribute to steering the direction of scientific research in the community, at scale.

As a medical journal editor, I frequented The New York Academy of Sciences, regularly participating in its scientific and medical conferences. I swiftly recognized the transferability of my technical and communication skills to the organization’s mission: bringing together top scientific minds to exchange new information and collaborate on science-based solutions for society’s pressing challenges.

Over a decade ago, I joined the Academy’s staff as the Director of the Life Sciences conference portfolio. Transitioning to the nonprofit sector marked another significant career pivot, my first foray into nonprofit business administration, a world apart from my expertise as a microbiologist. In addition to staying current with science and curating cutting-edge programming, my role expanded to include budget management for a standalone business unit, securing program sponsors and donors, negotiating partnerships and contracts, building and mentoring a team of former academic scientists (including many women), and serving as a spokesperson on various platforms to raise awareness of the Academy’s work.

This unique skill set combined science with business management; a path rarely envisioned at the start of a scientific career. Today, as CSO, on any given day my role might involve advocating for science-based policy changes at the United Nations, meeting with university or company leaders for collaborations, creating social media content celebrating women scientists during Women’s History Month, coaching young scientists on communication skills, or selecting deserving researchers for funding to support their ambitious scientific endeavors.

My scientific career represents a journey along the road less traveled — a shift not just from the traditional path of lab scientist to steering influential, mission-driven scientific initiatives, but also a response to the glaring absence of women role models in STEM, a desire to transition from deep expertise in a niche area to a comprehensive understanding of all facets of science and tech, and the need for trusted voices to challenge scientific misinformation. Once a singular force driving discovery in a niche domain, today as a C-suite leader of a nonprofit, I can empower countless scientists, shaping the collective future of science itself.

Brooke with Mae Jemison, 2017

Why, in general, are you proud to work for the Academy?

The Academy has brought together the leading minds in science to solve global challenges for over 200 hundred years. It’s a true privilege – for this moment in time – to serve as one of the stewards of scientific discovery, dialogue, and dissemination during the Academy’s history.

Why do you think science is so important to society?

Science nurtures our innate curiosity and is the primary tool for understanding the world around us. It transcends borders and cultures and leads to new discoveries and technological advances that improve our quality of life, from medicine to transportation.

Investment in science has led to economic growth and countless inventions that have evolved into products that today we’d all find hard to live without: from camera phones and the computer mouse to water purifiers and wireless headsets, from dust busters to memory foam mattresses. Science is also crucial for addressing environmental challenges like climate change and provides the data and analysis necessary for informed policymaking. The scientific discoveries made today will shape how our world looks over the coming century.

Which scientist (or scientists) would you most like to have dinner with and why?

Here’s who I’d love to have around my dinner table:

At the Pyramids at Giza, Egypt, 2023

One, the legendary naturalist and broadcaster Sir David Attenborough. His lifelong dedication to wildlife conservation and environmental advocacy has ignited global awareness and action for the planet’s well-being. And let’s not forget that voice!

Two, astronaut, physician, and engineer Mae Jemison who made history by becoming the first African American woman to travel in space. She was a mission specialist on the Space Shuttle Endeavor launched in 1992. I met her at an Academy event in 2017 and had to try very hard not to cry with joy in what was a very special moment meeting an inspirational woman in STEM.

Three, primatologist Jane Goodall for her depth of understanding of chimpanzees and their behavior, and for promoting animal welfare and conservation.

Then, let’s throw in fictional intrepid archeologist Indiana Jones and the always rational, skeptical, and analytical FBI Special Agent Dana Scully from the X-Files. Add me as host, and my dinner table for six is complete!

What hobbies or interests do you have outside of work?

Travel, travel, travel — for the thrill of discovering new cultures, savoring exotic cuisines, forming connections with people from around the world, and marveling at the beauty and diversity of our planet. I just returned from exploring Egypt. The legacy of Egyptian engineering, seen in the precision of their architectural marvels, serves as a timeless testament to human creativity, innovation and determination.

Read more about impactful Academy staff members:

Big Questions for Our Journey to Mars

A graphic illustration of an astronaut on Mars.

Travel to Mars — and successful habitation there — will take more than good science, technology and engineering. It will require solutions to challenges in politics, ethics and law.

Published April 15, 2022

By Brooke Grindlinger, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer

At this year’s South by Southwest Festival, I had the pleasure of asking a panel of experts some big questions about travel to Mars. The journey will push limits of the human body and may take us to the edge of ethical behavior – or beyond. Here are my top 10 questions and takeaways from the conversation.

1. The effects of space travel on the human body may not be reversible.

Two hazards astronauts will face during a trip to Mars—and a stay there—are DNA-breaking radiation and the effects of weightlessness and microgravity.

Astronauts have been exposed to the hazards of weightlessness and radiation in space since 1968. Here Owen Garriott retrieves an experiment outside Skylab in 1973.

“Imagine you’re lying off the side of your bed when you’re a kid, and all the blood is rushing to your head. In microgravity, the result of increased pressure that builds up in the head, pressing against the brain and against the eyes, can cause changes in vision—Spaceflight Associated Neuro-Ocular Syndrome,” explained Eliah Overbey, PhD, a NASA space biology postdoctoral fellow and postdoctoral associate in computational biomedicine of physiology and biophysics at Weill Cornell Medicine. “Over 50% of astronauts will experience some sort of vision change when they’re in space. Some of that does reverse when they return to Earth and some of it does not, some of it persists.”

From left to right: Brooke Grindlinger, Eliah Overbey, Charity Phillips-Lander, and Erika Nesvold at South by Southwest panel Alienating Mars: Challenges of Space Colonization. Photo: Ana Karotkin, ©NYAS

2. The jury is still out on whether there is—or ever was—life on Mars.

“Right now, it looks like Mars’ surface is probably pretty inhospitable to microbes. So, the evidence that we’re looking for at the surface is really focused more on past life, life in the geologic record. But it’s a completely different story in the subsurface,” reported Charity Phillips-Lander, PhD, a senior research scientist in astrobiology at the Southwest Research Institute who studies the habitability and possible bio-signatures of planetary bodies.

Floor of Gale Crater is seen toward the top of this photo, taken from Curiosity Mars Rover

“We see manganese oxides—what you would call ‘desert varnish’—that show up in some of the rocks in Hale Crater on Mars and also on Earth. Those are typically precipitated by microorganisms. Jezero Crater and Gale Crater show really low carbon isotopic values that might be indicative of methanotrophs—microbes that eat methane for a living. We’ve seen methane in Mars’ atmosphere.” That’s possible evidence, Phillips-Lander said, of evidence of life on Mars in the past. “But we need more evidence, and that’s what Perseverance is rolling around looking for right now,” she added, referring to the robot that is now roaming the planet.

Candidate astronauts selfie

3. Who gets to go? It is not too soon to call for disability inclusion in space exploration.

“Deciding who among the 8 billion of us gets to go up into space, and even go to Mars, is a tough question,” said Erika Nesvold, PhD, a co-founder of the JustSpace Alliance, which advocates for a more ethical, inclusive future in space. “Until now, the people who are able to go to space were the people selected by agencies like NASA, or more recently, people who have been able to afford space tourism flights. If you wanted to go to space, you need to be able to pass the astronaut selection, including a really strict health screening. This means that the people who have gone to space so far have primarily been very healthy, able-bodied people, which leaves out a huge portion of our population who are disabled. Why don’t we have disabled astronauts? What would it look like to redesign our space technology, to make it more accessible to people with disabilities?” Nesvold highlighted projects such as AstroAccess, which has just started launching disabled scientists, veterans, athletes, students, and artists on parabolic flights to experience weightlessness and low gravity conditions. A key goal is to investigate how space vehicles can be modified so that all astronauts and explorers—regardless of disability on Earth—can thrive in space.

Pop artist Viktoria floats upside down in zero gravity on board AstroAccess Flight 1 in October, 2021. Photo: AI Powers for Zero Gravity Corporation

4. Space immigration: let’s not repeat the mistakes we’ve made on Earth.

NASA is hoping to put astronauts on Mars by 2035. It’s not difficult to conceive that, in the years to follow, others may arrive on Mars as migrants or as refugees. “Even now, we can see the huge human rights issues that come up when one group of people moves to a new place, especially if there are already people in that place,” reflected Nesvold. “Suppose we manage to get a population of humans living on Mars and then a second group wants to go there too. How will the original inhabitants feel about that immigration?” Nesvold said the response might vary, for example, depending on whether the new arrivals are fleeing strife, or if they have something to offer economically. “It’s worth getting some historians in the room… [How can we] learn from what’s happened here on Earth, to protect all of those groups in the future?”

NASA illustration of an astronaut on Mars

5. Survival hacks have to be sustainable.

“One of the things that we need to focus on is sustainability, because for every ounce of material you take with you, you also have to provide fuel to get it there,” Phillips-Lander pointed out. “Through NASA’s biological and physical science programs, we’re experimenting with things like growing food on the moon. How do we do that, and how do we assess and prospect for the resources we might need? How do we print bricks, because we’re going to need to build a habitat? Can we create bioregenerative habitats that take CO2 and turn it back into oxygen, either through plants or microbes? We’re also looking at developing synthetic microbes that can carry out specific processes that might be beneficial to humans.”

6. Ethical quandaries abound if we engineer a “better human” for space travel.

Opportunities to protect and prepare the human body in advance of space travel, and for longer-term survival on Mars, are now on the horizon with bioengineering technologies like CRISPR gene editing and immunotherapy. “Is there some way that we can engineer astronauts to be more radiation-resistant or to overcome the fluid shifts that are going to cause different sorts of cognitive effects?” asked Overbey. “There’s an ethical question, really under debate on Earth: how much should we be editing the genome? Should you be editing cells that are going to pass on to your children? Can we justify gene editing in these contexts to overcome some of these limitations? Are we actually now morally obligated to do genetic engineering in order to adapt to those environments?” Overbey continued, “If we’re changing our genetic code, making permanent changes, are we changing how we define humans as a species, and making changes to genomes that will affect future generations?” Nesvold expanded on these ethical conundrums: “If we want to have self-sustaining human settlements in space, we have to figure out whether human reproduction is possible in space, with all the weightlessness and the radiation. At some point, even if you’ve done studies on animals, we’re going to have to try it, and that involves experimenting on pregnant people and fetuses… It’s a big ethical barrier to getting to the point of having self-sustaining human populations in space.”

The SXSW panelists doing their best to demonstrate microgravity on Mars. Photo: Ana Karotkin, ©NYAS

7. Terraforming Mars: Could we? Should we?

Might we terraform Mars, turning it from a red planet to a green one, or a blue one like Earth, in an effort to make it more hospitable? “If we just go in and whole-scale terraform Mars right off the bat, then we defeat one of the scientific goals of human exploration, which is to figure out if there was life on Mars, or if there is life on Mars today,” warned Phillips-Lander. “So, initial missions are going to focus on minimizing the risk of contamination. We’ve established areas of Mars that are categorized as special regions because they have the highest potential for life. And so those areas are mostly off limits,” Nesvold said, referring to policies developed by the Committee on Space Research of the International Council for Science. She added: “The problem is that any terraforming we do to make Mars more like Earth, makes Mars less like Mars.” She paraphrased a question of scientific ethics raised in the film Jurassic Park: “We need to work really hard to make sure that no one eventually says about us, that we were so busy thinking about whether we could, that we didn’t think about whether we should.”

NASA Concept illustration, human settlement on Mars

8. How do we protect the rights of Mars amid an alien invasion?

Before we become too wrapped up in our own self-preservation as a species, we should remember an alien invasion is about to take place. But this time, we will be the aliens. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 outlines a series of planetary protections that govern space and space travel, but many questions remain about the scope and enforceability of the treaty. “For every planetary mission that we undertake, part of the evaluation process for mission selection is planetary protection,” explained Phillips-Lander. She said mission planners must develop “a viable burden limit”—a maximum number of organisms that a spacecraft is allowed to carry. “For a special region like a lava tube on Mars that might be a habitable environment for life, that’s basically zero, which is really challenging to achieve,” she said. “We have a whole suite of clean rooms on Earth that are designed for that, and back planetary protection, so that we’re not bringing novel organisms back to Earth and releasing them, because that would obviously be potentially bad. We’re trying to do it both ways.” Nesvold took the conversation on the protection of Mars astrobiology further: “What rights do the microbes have to not be exterminated if we want to move up there with our Earth microbes and potentially wipe them out? We all use Lysol, and we’re all really trying to kill a certain virus right now. But this would be a really unusual population of microbes. Are they special because they come from another planet? And there are people who argue that even an environment that has no life in it has some kind of intrinsic rights to its own integrity.”

Mars Curiosity rover after drilling rock samples with Gale Crater in the background

9. How can we live together on Mars?

Numerous ethical, sociological, and even psychological questions must be considered for space travel. “As we’re trying to figure out how we will live in this space environment, we also have to figure out how we’ll live with each other in the space environment, because sometimes the other humans in your group are your biggest problem or your most important asset as you’re facing a really extreme environment,” Nesvold said. “We’re going to have to figure out how to self-organize and have some self-governance, the way that small groups have throughout history. We’ll need to be able to answer questions like: How do we handle conflicts between people living in space or between the people living in space and the ones back on Earth? What happens if you move to Mars to take a job and then you lose that job—do you have to pay for water, food, and air in space? Do you get a free ticket back to Earth or are you just on your own in a deadly environment? We’re certainly capable of bringing our inequalities with us into space, and I’m very confident we’re capable of inventing new ones in space. We need to be deliberate about this and think about what kind of future we want for ourselves, wherever it is, and make sure that we’re taking steps to protect that future for our descendants in space.”

10. Space capitalism: will its innovations be our salvation?

Why should we be spending so much money to explore Mars? Will the benefit warrant the costs?

Falcon 9 liftoff; photo: SpaceX

“The return on investment is worth it because we’re going to get new technologies or access to resources that you don’t have here on Earth,” posited Nesvold. “But you have to make sure that those benefits are actually being distributed equitably.” When asked to comment on the billionaire-driven space ecosystem that we see flourishing today, Nesvold responded: “A big issue with the space program since its creation has been that it had to survive off of taxpayer money. If you can make the space sector profitable it becomes self-sustaining…. Profit-seeking is a big part of what’s supporting this industry and helping it move forward. Capitalism brings innovation, and innovation is what we need for space. The problem is that capitalism also roots a lot of misery and inequality. The trick is figure out how to get the innovation without increasing inequality and environmental destruction.”

One partial solution, Overbey said, are public-private partnerships that establish “guardrails” against out-of-control self-interest in space exploration. In her closing remarks, she described one big-picture view of why we should take on the challenge of space exploration: “We may think the Earth will end at some point, maybe millions, billions of years in the future. Or there’s always the threat that something could go horribly wrong on Earth within our lifetimes. Right now, where we’re at, we don’t have the science with our technology to sustain ourselves in space or on another planet indefinitely. So, when we think about return on investment, is it numbers and dollar signs for medicine, for a new technology?” Or, Oberbey asked, “What is the cost of [saving] the human race?”

Minor edits have been made to quotes for clarity.

Photos and illustrations courtesy NASA, unless noted otherwise.

The Five C’s to Follow When Monitoring Your Child’s Screen Time

A child using a tablet.

Published August 10, 2020

By Brooke Grindlinger, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer

Not all screen time is created equal for kids and teens. As digital devices have swiftly displaced classrooms, playgrounds, and playdates, here are 5 practical tips from experts in digital media, parenting, and pediatrics to help parents navigate the daily screen time dilemma.

A child using a tablet.

For parents that may be feeling guilty about the amount of time their kids are spending on digital devices during the COVID-19 pandemic, a recent New York Academy of Sciences panel convened experts in pediatrics, education, and digital media to weigh in on how best to use digital media in balance as a family, find quality content, set expectations around healthy use, and protect kids’ physical and mental health.

To optimize your child’s screen time, experts encourage parents to consider these five C’s:

1.  Content

Engagement with high quality content that stokes kids’ curiosity, builds new skills, fuels the imagination, and avoids conflict situations, is more critical than the overall quantity of screen time.

2.  Context

Don’t think of virtual school classes and video chats with remote family members as generic ‘screen time’. Reframe this as valuable ‘education time’ and ‘family time’. Experts also encourage co-viewing of media – the use of digital media with other family members – over solitary use.

3.  Connection

It’s important that kids are connecting on a personal level while watching, reading or playing on a digital device. Are they engrossed, enlightened, or engaged in critical and strategic thinking?

4.  Creativity

Does the medium allow your child to create new content – be it new art, photography, songs, or video? Creativity affords kids more ownership of their digital learning experience.

5.  Conversation

While parents cannot participate in every moment of their child’s digital experience, they can ask their children about their experience after the fact. Follow-up with your child at dinner time or bedtime and have them tell you what you – as a parent – missed in the most recent episode or game of what your child watched or played.

Finally, the experts reinforced that only you can know what activities create meaning for your family, support your family’s goals, and help family members cope during challenging times.

This article was originally published on LinkedIn.

Also read: 5 Reasons Scientific Prizes Are Good For The World

Could we Genetically Protect Astronaut Health on the Mission to Mars? 

A screenshot from a virtual meeting.

Beyond Spacesuits and Pain Relievers: Could we Genetically Protect Astronaut Health on the Mission to Mars? On May 12, 2020, I hosted a virtual conversation for the New York Academy of Sciences with astrobiologist Kennda Lynch, PhD (Lunar and Planetary Institute), geneticist Christopher Mason, PhD (Weill Cornell Medicine), and planetary scientist Lucianne Walkowicz, PhD (The JustSpace Alliance; Adler Plantarium) exploring some of the physical—and ethical—obstacles to be surmounted for a successful human mission to Mars.

Published May 12, 2020

By Brooke Grindlinger, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer

Much has been written about finding the next Earth—a planetary body to serve as future outpost for the human race as Earth’s life-sustaining natural resources dwindle. But Mars won’t exactly offer a warm welcome to unshielded humans: an average temperature of -80°F/-62°C, an atmosphere of 96% toxic carbon dioxide, a surface covered in fine red dust, and a hefty dose of radiation constantly tearing through your DNA. Hostile welcome aside, we first have to get there safely.

Are We There Yet?

With current jet propulsion technologies, and depending on the position of the red planet in its orbit, the shortest journey from Earth to Mars is estimated to take 6 months. As revealed by NASA’s study of identical twins Scott and Mark Kelly—undertaken before, during, and after Scott embarked on his one-year mission on the International Space Station—long-term space flight can exact a multitude of transient and permanent effects on the human body: from loss of muscle tone and bone density to changes in vision and the body’s ability to repair itself.

A round trip is expected to eclipse the lifetime maximum recommended dosage of radiation. We humans are hardy, but are we tough enough for the mission to Mars?

Beyond the Whims of Evolution

While we don’t yet know if there is life on Mars, or if it had life in the past, a peek at the vast diversity of life right here on Earth reveals lifeforms that can survive in harsh environments that resemble the Martian surface. Some extremophiles—organisms that thrive in high radiation or very dry, salty, acidic, hot or cold settings—may be better equipped than Homo sapiens for life on Mars. Could they serve as a genetic reservoir in which to fish for talents and traits that if introduced into humans would make us more resilient?

The gene editing technique CRISPR, or the synthetic redesign of organisms to engineer new abilities, could propel astronaut preparation forward through strategic genetic enhancement of the human body or the custom design of microbes that support daily life on Mars. Imagine a designer microbe that secretes materials that catalyze concrete production from Mars soil, or supports water production, waste disposal, or plant growth. Genes taken from the humble tardigrade—a microscopic creature genetically resistant to radiation damage—when inserted into human cells, have been shown to provide protection against radiation. Along with physical and pharmacological protections—from spacesuits to pain relievers—could we safely genetically protect astronaut heath? And if so, should we?

The Big Experiment

When human medical studies are conducted, patients must be fully apprised of the risks and willingly give their consent to participate. If at any time the patient wishes to leave the study, they can withdraw their consent and go home. No such U-turns will be available to astronauts when months into their journey to Mars. The risks associated with space travel are carefully calculated, and many regulations in place to protect astronaut health.

However, as we push the human body to, and perhaps beyond, reasonable limits, this begs the question: are the health risks so high that extreme methods of protection like gene editing or synthetic biology would be justified? Are we in fact ethically bound to pursue these methods of protection because the risk of not pursuing them is too great? While these technologies are still in exploratory stages today, it’s intriguing to think of the future possibilities, and ethical quandaries, that may be realized on the fourth or fifth generation missions to Mars.

Mars may only be half the size of Earth, but it will pack one heck of a sensory punch for the astronauts anticipated to touch down on the red planet by 2035. As the fantastic future of human space travel continues to unfold before us, the challenges of sustaining human life in space should, in parallel, drive us to live more sustainably here on Earth in the here and now.

This article was originally published on LinkedIn.

Also read: Big Questions for Our Journey to Mars

5 Reasons Scientific Prizes Are Good for the World

If athletes and celebrities can be recognized for their achievements, why can’t scientists?

By Brooke Grindlinger, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer

Every October, the world learns who will be the newest members of a very elite circle known as Nobel Laureates.

Whether or not you agree with the selection committee’s choices, the Nobel Prize is considered a career pinnacle of success and the annual announcement continues to captivate the media and general public in addition to the scientific community. This in part is due to the hefty prize purse, roughly $1.1 million, but also because of the body of work that the winners represent and its contributions to societal advances.

At the New York Academy of Sciences, we believe prizes like the Nobel and others help to advance scientific discovery, which in turn is good for the world. And if athletes and celebrities can be recognized for their achievements why shouldn’t scientists? But we also believe that acknowledgement of early-career work is equally important.

We administer two scientific prizes that in the past 15+ years have helped boost the careers of more than 450 young scientists pursuing unconventional ideas and new directions with the fearlessness and creativity of youth: the Blavatnik Awards for Young Scientists and the Innovators in Science Award. While many people may be familiar with the concept of a science grant, the purpose of a scientific prize—such as the Nobel or the Blavatnik Awards—may be less clear. Here are just a few of the reasons scientific prizes are important to the pursuit of science, the scientific community, and the public, at large.

1. Recognition

In addition to receiving cash and prestige, awardees receive recognition for their instrumental role in making key advances in areas of science in the service of humanity. This type of recognition can lead to acceptance of a paradigm-shifting idea, allocation of funding and resources to a particular area of research, and increased awareness of a research topic. For rising young talent, it can cement the shift from local player to the global stage. And while not every discipline’s importance may be readily understood by lay audiences, such as Astrophysics or Mathematics, the attention drawn from the award can still confirm the importance of the achievement.

2. Platform

Scientists are not always the most proactive advocates for their own work. So a nomination for an award, typically made by nominees’ respective institutions and/or colleagues, is itself a validation of their work. Being one’s own spokesperson also involves flexing a set of communication skills, not often utilized in the lab. Whether it is vying for a nomination, distilling complex ideas for a broader audience or giving TV or radio interviews about the research—these experiences help scientists fine-tune their skills in communicating science, not only to other scientists and stakeholders, but to funders and the general public.

3. Public Awareness and Engagement

Media buzz around awards can boost public awareness and engagement in science. Scientific innovation continues to shape the nature of modern life as we know it: from antibiotics and vaccination to the internet and smartphones. Actively promoting the role of science, and scientists, in the development of the tools and technologies we often take for granted today, reinforces the need for continued public funding of science. The voices of scientists and a scientifically literate public are equally important in the critical ongoing dialogue on science and evidence-based policy-making.

4. Role Models

Awards create positive role models in the scientific community. These men and women, drawn from across the globe, inspire young students to pursue careers in science, and drive current scientists to strive for excellence. Both are key to maintaining a strong pipeline of talent in STEM and essential if America is to remain competitive in a global economy.

5. Flexibility

As the funding climate for scientific research continues to grow increasingly challenging, awards can help ease financial tensions, whether personal or in the lab. More stable funding allows scientists to take on additional or high-risk, high-return projects not otherwise supported by traditional avenues of funding.

By recognizing and honoring those individuals that have made significant contributions to science, through the presentation of scientific awards, we continue to elevate the bar of scientific progress and its positive impact on humanity and promote the breakthroughs in science and tech that will define how our world will look over the next century.

This post was originally published on LinkedIn and has been updated.