'round on the Committee 



Summary of Responses to Letter 



Circulated by External Relations Study Group 



to Private Industry and Academia 



Abstract 



Three basic emphases emerged in the approximately 100 responses to the 

 Committee Chairman's letter of April 17, 1987. The respondents generally endorsed 

 special interest research goals, suggested changes to enhance funding procedures, 

 and recommended increased access to research facilities in space. 



Research Topics 



Specialists from a large number of disciplines responded to the letter. Many 

 recommended continued or expanded research activities in areas of special interest 

 to the Life Sciences. Discipline areas identified by respondents included the 

 following: 



radiobiology, clinical diagnosis and treatment, cell and tissue culture, plant 

 biology and physiology, evolution of life, digestive physiology and nutrition, 

 bone demineralization and recovery, Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems 

 (CELSS), Mars mission, Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), cell and 

 molecular biology, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal systems, psychology and 

 sociology of weightlessness and isolation, anti-emetic drug therapy, dental 

 restoration in microgravity, space radiation carcinogenesis, acupuncture therapy 

 for space motion sickness, immune system effects of microgravity, calcium 

 metabolism, and exobiology. 



Funding 



Virtually no respondents emphasized the need for large and immediate increases 

 in Life Sciences funding for specific projects. This was probably attributable to 

 somewhat lowered funding expectations in view of Federal budgetary restraints. 

 Three specific concerns were raised, however. (1) Many respondents felt the need 

 for changes in the procedure for research proposal review, and several suggested 

 panel review to help reduce the inbreeding often associated with peer review. 

 (2) Many respondents suggested increased advertising of Announcements of 

 Opportunity (AO's) and Requests for Proposals (RFP's) in national scientific 

 journals. (3) One respondent made a strong case that NASA needs a policy of 

 firm financial commitment to multiyear programs. It is difficult to plan mulfiyear 

 studies if program managers reduce second and third year awards by more than 

 5 percent. 



Flight Missions 



Respondents with broad views of the Life Sciences program addressed their 

 comments to the crucial problem of access to space. One respondent made the 

 point that "scientific excellence demands rigorous results and high productivity." 

 He, along with others, thought that the greatest impediment to productivity in the 

 Life Sciences continues to be the limited access to microgravity. 



197 



