This Week's NASA Spinoff That NASA Won't Be Telling You About
NASA-funded Research: Earlier Detection of Bone Loss May be in Future, ASU
“Are your bones getting stronger or weaker? Right now, it’s hard to know. Scientists at Arizona State University and NASA are taking on this medical challenge by developing and applying a technique that originated in the Earth sciences. In a new study, this technique was more sensitive in detecting bone loss than the X-ray method used today, with less risk to patients. Eventually, it may find use in clinical settings, and could pave the way for additional innovative biosignatures to detect disease.”
Keith’s note: Wow. A real spinoff – one with an immense potential benefit to people living on Earth. But is there any mention of this PNAS paper at NASA or CASIS? Of course not. Indeed, neither NASA or CASIS seem to be at all interested in promoting ongoing results of space-based and NASA-funded research – unless its budget time, that is. Indeed, no one in the ISS utilization world can find the vanishingly small amount money needed to put this simple, regularly-generated listing of actual research publications online. Any PR-savvy organization looking to make its accomplishments known would be making sure that the AARP knew about this. Not NASA. Baffling.
NASA Spaceline Current Awareness 25 May 2012 (Recent Space Life Science Research Results)
Keith’s update: NASA OCT’s @NASASpinoff did take time out today to tweet about “Space bread”.
Thanks much for posting this, Keith. I haven’t seen it elsewhere. This is exactly the sort of research that I’ve been arguing that NASA should be doing. Assuming it works out, it’s going to be beneficial to everyone on Earth and in space. It’s non-invasive internal medicine, which is a big step in the right direction (Hello Dr. McCoy).
This is, I feel strongly, is one of those critical areas of R&D that we’ll have to conquer (or at the very least much better understand) before we can start planning to put people into space for extended periods, let alone permanently (ISS expedition members seem to treat it as an acceptable risk). But research on human biology in space seems to get pushed to the back burner and into the shadows.
Better monitoring methods will hopefully lead to more information that can help scientists develop good correction and/or preventative therapies before too long. Although I find this Arizona State University/NASA work encouraging, it is but one issue of many that need to be studied and solved sufficiently before we can settle space, or even do BEO HSF missions with any degree of comfort. This is all just my opinion, of course, but if we can’t offer our spacefarers a reasonable degree of health and comfort, should we really be considering sending them off Earth for extended periods?
Steve
Wow! Great find Keith
Its called Google 😉 Too bad NASA doesn’t know how to use it. They could set up automatic Google news alerts for certain key words and then learn more about what it is they are doing.
Well it’s a great find for me 🙂 I check your site and a couple others as a filter for the space news I consume (and often forward links to people)… I guess we each play our role.
And yes they should be in the know for these kinds of things, and this is one to talk about. How? Google search? Perhaps someone involved in the management of this research should have tooted their horn up to PR. NASA is big and I don’t know how that would normally work.
They would also learn about useful things that NASA does that aren’t “spinoff”, like ballistic fabric around jet engines that prevents broken turbine blades from flying getting out and cutting hydraulic lines, so we won’t have an airliner lose control because of a simple engine failure, and the sawtooth engine nozzles that reduce jet noise, and the Whitcomb winglets that reduce drag on every large aircraft. The concept of “spinoff” has unfortunately put us in a situation where it the public thinks the only way NASA can do something practical is as an accidental byproduct of human spaceflight.
The increase in urine calcium was reported during project Gemini in about the same time period. Measuring levels of ions in urine with high precision has been perfectly feasible for a long time. This isn’t to disparage the research. If a NASA researcher believes he or she can provide significant practical benefits in any field, NASA should consider funding the investigation. If we actually confined ourselves to the narrow set of advances really needed to put Americans on the moon or mars, there would be little to do.
Then it seems that it is way past time to apply this in more ways. Why don’t we have bone loss testing for at-risk patients? Maybe detecting disease before other symptoms, checking one aspect of recovery of cancer patients, and it might be good to know how likely it is for grandma to break her hip.
Some of this research is quite informative, but I would be careful not to hype its importance. Sensitivity of detection is not really an issue since fracture risk doesn’t increase without a loss of around 30% and much smaller amounts of loss are easily detectable. The research on resistance exercise is fairly new, although there has been general understanding for a number of years it is effective. The problem is that most people on earth who have disuse osteoporosis cannot exercise voluntarily, so the NASA study doesn’t help them directly. If they could exercise, they would be walking and less subject to bone loss. Exercise is only moderately helpful in hormonal osteoporosis, which has a different distribution and mechanism. Research funding to identify better treatments for people on earth is hard to come by even though they vastly outnumber astronauts.
The importance of the research is not so much in the detection of osteoporosis but in monitoring the effectiveness of treatments for it, and in evaluating new therapies. Does a therapy intended to reduce the rate of bone loss actually do so? Being able to answer that question without having to wait for changes in bone density detectable by x-ray would be quite valuable, both clinically and in research.
The potential importance of the Ca isotopic technique is not in so much in the diagnosis of osteoporosis as in the the evaluation of treatments designed to maintain bone mass, without having to wait for changes in bone density detectable by x-ray techniques. Does a treatment designed to stop bone loss actually do so? Being able to answer that question quickly would be an important advance, both clinically and for research on new therapies.
This issue has been known for a while as someone mentioned since Gemini. This is fantastic work that may benefit a lot of people. However, this is more relevant work for ASU or others at USF studying this than NASA, as the PI’s are located there.
Bone loss in space needs to be mitigated for long duration missions. Detecting it doesn’t solve much for spaceflight.
You can’t expect someone with bone loss, weaker muscles to automatically walk on mars after landing. This is virtually guaranteed end with methods used today to mitigate bone and muscle loss. ISS crewmembers are given wheelchairs after return for a reason, the periodic loading and training doesn’t work well.
So far, the only pathway I deem truly viable is some sort of centripetal acceleration. Artificial g is still likely a long time away.