Twins in Space: More Smoke and Mirrors on NASA's Road to Mars
Finding gene activity differences in identical twins, Ars Technica
“They’re called identical twins because their genomes are identical. But even though all of their DNA is the same, they clearly are not. The environment must play a role in how identical twins and everyone else uses their genes to become who they are.”
One if by Land, Two if by Space: Astronaut Twins Tantalize Human Research Possibilities in Spaceflight, NASA
“A multitude of human research investigations currently are underway and are scheduled for upcoming expeditions aboard the space station by NASA and its international partners. The opportunity to compare the effects of spaceflight accumulated over one year and observe changes in the genetic makeup between twin brothers is new. These investigations could have lasting implications for protecting astronauts on deep space exploration missions, including travel to asteroids and Mars.”
Keith’s note: NASA has spent a lot of time hyping the whole twins thing. It is important to note that “identical” twins are not identical. Just take that face-to-face photo of the Kelly twins (larger view), flip one image, superimpose it on the other, align for facial features and look what you get: altered skull shape (ergo brain shape) and ear shape and placement. But they are identical – how did that happen? Hmm. Prenatal environment is likely the prime factor but other things during their early lives could be at work as well. To be certain the Kelly twins are vastly more alike at the genetic level than this crude photo comparison might suggest. But they are not identical – and they become less identical with every passing day.
This one-off, 342 days in space thing is not going to reveal the multitude of mysteries that are blocking NASA’s trail to Mars – as NASA wants you to think it will. Certainly no more than John Glenn’s flight solved the mysteries of aging that NASA PR hype claimed it would. If NASA wanted to do real science they’d find a pair of twins and fly one in space and never fly the other. And then they’d repeat it multiple times with other pairs of twins. There will be interesting data – that is certain. But will this research move NASA down the road to Mars? If so, not by very much – if at all. At best, these Kelly brother studies will show the difference between a little spaceflight (54 days spaced across 4 short missions) and a lot of spaceflight (540 days – two long ISS stints and a shuttle flight) on one genome that operates in two different bodies.
Why not put a bunch of people on ISS – the size of a Mars mission crew – all at the same time – for the 2-3 years needed for a round trip to Mars? Better yet: let them spend a year or so on ISS, dump them immediately in the arctic (on their own) for 6 months to do field work – and then put them back on the ISS for another year or so. THAT would be far more useful in terms of flight certifying humans for a trip to Mars and back than this twins study.
The reason why NASA can’t or won’t send people to Mars is because NASA has not decided to actually try to send people to Mars. No one in the White House, Congress, or NASA is serious about this. Everything NASA claims to be doing in that regard right now (such as ARM and the twin studies) is just smoke and mirrors. #YearInSpace is just the latest installment in this pretense that anyone is actually trying to send humans to Mars at NASA.
The study of a person who spends a year in space (maybe two if the Russians feel like giving us their data) would be useful – but the study will have a sample size of 1. We cannot generalize from a population of 1. We cannot come up with countermeasures with a study size of 1.
This is an anecdote and not data.
Wouldn’t you agree that they have to start somewhere? And he happens to be the first? They’ll gain some experience, see what works and plan for others with more tailored experiments perhaps even longer times. Granted their is a lot of “Hoopla” but so what.
This is simply what we used to call “a fishing expedition” when I ran biomedical peer review panels for NASA. An easier way to express this is “lets see what happens”.
Neil.Verea Yes we should start somewhere, but that would be with a scientifically valid study. One with a reasonable sample size. Now we cannot fly 30 people on ISS!! Still this gonna generate an anecdote not science.
I think you are agreeing with me, albeit in a tortured way, but if you aren’t how would you conduct the research for long duration exposure at a cost equal or less then what this experiment is costing?
Neil.Verea We are agreeing in part. I see no problem with NASA doing this, but I wonder if it is the highest priority study or is it a way to get good publicity? It should not be advertised as a “science” study since it is impossible to get a statistically valid population. If you do “more tailored experiments” then your conditions have changed and the samples are not comparable. I am not saying that NASA should put 30 or 40 people on ISS for a year since that is not possible. I do not see a way to “conduct research for long duration exposure” except to have many subjects for shorter times (which we are sort of doing now). There is not a easy way to get valid data for long duration. NASA says that the research is observational in nature, their press makes it sound like it could give us the answers we need.
Add in the fact that they are facing a return to 1 G as opposed to 0.38G and this will be a more rigorous test than the real thing.
I was under the impression that gravity at less than 1G is unhealthy because the body gets out of shape because of the lack of exercise. Therefore I don’t understand your logic. If you simulate a Mars trip by putting humans on earth at 1G as opposed to at .38G they should be stronger for the return trip. Doesn’t the body recover in 1G??? Isn’t spending more time at less than 1G more stressful not less?
What are the effects of the body being at Mars gravity for an extended period of time?
Does NASA plan to simulate as you suggest. Do they have these flights already planned. Why hasn’t it been done already? You have been to Devon Island, Zubrins had his play stations around forever??? When did NASA decide we are going to Mars???
Why not have them live at a lunar base for one year then live on the ISS for one year then return home?
Great idea. One small problem: there is no lunar base.
Build one … instead of ISS II.
When dragon V2 comes on line use two Dv2s and spin them with some people and some rats in them to simulate Mars gravity.
Does anyone REALLY believe that the first ship to mars won’t use spinning ships to avoid this space health risk?
This test could be done using ISS cargo money to get the dragonV2s up there. Use ISS personnel. The spinning test should be near ISS for safety, rescue lift boat.
Gemmi and agenda had control issues in Gemini days.
Don’t we need to relearn/driving, spinning space craft?????
I thought NASA was suppose to solve problems not use them to justify getting more money?
If you can do a zero G simulation of the outbound and inbound flight – at full duration – with a long 1G surface sortie in between – and the crew is healthy and productive throughout – then why develop all of the artificial gravity? This simple proof of concept could be done today simply for the cost of sending them to the arctic (or antarctic) for 6 months. Oh yes – when you consider your reply – I am a gravitational biologist who used to worry about this stuff at NASA – including the selection of the research.
Let’s do as you suggest and let’s go!!!! Where’s the Mars spaceships?
Because we don’t know if a .38G would equate to the simulated 1G surface sortie.
We really need some research at .38. Whether or not that is done in LEO or on the surface of Mars depends on how much risk you want to accept.
Identical twins are called that because their genes are identical. As the fertilized egg started dividing, instead of staying together, they split into two separate groups of cells which formed two distinct, but genetically identical, individuals.
Fraternal twins, on the other hand, come from two separately fertilized eggs, so they are genetically as dissimilar as siblings who did not share a womb.
Twin studies are a scientifically accepted away to help determine what and how much is influenced by geneitics versus environmental influence. In other words, nature versus nurture.