a4 XERO
capy

I.

Space Science Board

Committee - 11. Biological Sciences

Many of us have been urging for sometime that exobiology should not only
be the prime concern in the biological part of NASA's program, but is in many
respects potentially the most important scientific question at stake in the
whole space program.

Pittendrigh went so far in two lectures last spring as to suggest that the
biological exploration of Mars should be identified, with Presidential authority,
as @ National goal éf as least equal importance to the manned lunar landings.

On the other hand, as you know, the actual growth of the exoblology effort
has been slow and frustrated by repeated re-estimates dowmwards of the payloads
we can contemplate for Mariner etc.

It seems to some of us that the time is ripe for a renewed examination of
the state of the exobiology effort, and, provided we are agreed on some funda-
mentals, a renewed effort to get the program into its proper perspective
Nationally and into higher gear practically.

Some points we need urgently to reconsider are as follows:

1. Are we still agreed on our former estimates that the exobiology program

should be
i) the prime concern in the Biosciences Program?
ii) so important as to merit being identified as a major National

goal, co-equal (at least) with Apollo?

XERO XERO XERO

ooPy Copy
-2-

There is some evidence that Mr. Webb would be sympathetic to the idea of
i) ii) above. But before we set in motion the appropriate pressures to this
end we need solid agreement that our enthusiasm is not outstripping our judement.
2. How do recent findings on the H,0 content and the extent of the
atmosphere on Mars affect our earlier judgments that failure in the exploration
for life on Mars is not a foregone conclusion?
3. Are we prepared, not only in principle, but in practical fact to defend
our position publicly against crities like Abelson and (I suspect) George Wald?
If the answer to these questions is favorable - meaning that we still hold
earlier news and are prepared +0 stand up and be counted in a public debate - ve
must begin with the unpleasant job of writing one or more carefully prepared
documents. These documents would form the basis of an organized effort by the
Academy's Space Science Board to bring about the needed changes of emphasis and,

organization, ete, in the National progran.

It. One such document might be a relatively brief statement of conviction; of
broadly stated concrete aims; and of recommendation that the exploration of
Mars be established, with highest authority as a National goal. Such a document
would be a policy position paper giving the Board a basis for the necessary
“political activity". You may comment that such a paper would contain nothing
we have not said before. However, some things have to be said more than once
and the fact is that the general climate of opinion on the Space program
generally has undergone some substantial shakeuwos in the last six months in
particular.

There is, first, the now widespread skepticism about its worthwhileness;

a skepticism that was given explicit form and considerable impetus by Abelson's

: =RO
XERO ea XERO peas

cory acne
editoral and testimony to the Senate.

Second, there is an associated, more widespread questionsny going on about
Federal science expenditures in general.

Third, there is the on-again, off-again Russian attitude to the whole space
contest that has, at least, shaken to some extent the previously unquestioned
assumption that we could not avoid a major program because of prestige
considerations.

Fourth, there is the change in Presidency to consider. President Johnson
is of course known to be a space enthusiast; but it may well turn out that his
enthusiasm is principally for the Houston effort and the politically appealing
spectaculars of man-spaced flight.

Altogether it seems to me that enough has been shaken up to justify the
trouble of our reviewing our statement of biological priorities. For there is
Little doubt that NASA itself is going through a soul-searching in priorities;
and now is the time to strike.

Much of the criticism of the Space Program that is hard to rebut concerns
the relatively small amount of real science involved. I believe we can exploit
that criticism in attempting to get the biological exploration of Mars upgraded
in the total program.

I suggest that if we go ahead and produce the position paver on policy it
be circulated to as many outstanding workers as possible for signature. These
could and should include physicists like Morrison and Dyson who I believe would

agree.

ITT. A second document is needed for other purposes. It is needed as a basis for
public defense of our position in debate with professionals who disegree. And

it is needed as a basis for more detailed and concrete planning in NASA than the

- 5 ° XERO
XERO XERO “Spe

XERO
COPY
LADO
OusX

45 we e
adOoe Awoo AGO

OuSX Ouwax Ouax

ah

position paper to Mr. Webb would permit.

The contents of that document are something the Palo Alto meeting must

take a first crack at outlining. Thus I have in mind in suggesting it include:

1)

2)

3)

A sober evaluation of aims and possible outcomes. ‘The value of the
information obtained even if negative results in life detection are
obtained.
Some indications of strategy for the program as a whole. ‘The relative
importance of fly-bys, soft landings. How information from fly bys
could modify planning for the landers.
Comment on the uniqueness of the opportunity in this decade. How this
should, or should not, affect strategy and priorities. Should we risk
a crash program for this opportunity or wait the 14 years for the next.
This is a really difficult one. Speed, haste, etc. are among the
most widely criticized features of the program. Would we gain by
advocating this haste and a better attack in the late 1970's? or is
the long delay to risky in the face on the capricious behavior of

Congress etc.?

Lederberg and Levinthal have I believe been preparing some substantial

review of the whole situation. ‘That review might be all we need; and certainly

it is going to help enormously. But in the long mm we shall need a document

that includes not only the purely scientifie considerations their paper will

cover but some statement of coherent plan of attack including recommendations

on priorities and procedures to NASA

C. &. Pittendrigh