Why we should return to the Moon

It is 40 years since Neil Armstrong took his giant leap for mankind after landing on the Moon on the 20th July 1969. Unfortunately, mankind has stood rather still since then as manned exploration of the unknown has significantly dwindled. It is not hard to see why; the capitulation of the Soviet Union in the race to the Moon eliminated the biggest incentive for going there, competition for national prestige. On top of that, spending cuts and high profile disasters such as the tragic loss of the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia, and their respective crews, also took their toll, while NASA’s failure to impress anyone with repeated moon landings and the International Space Station led to a collapse of public support for space exploration altogether.

The last few years, however, have seen the rebirth of the ‘space race’ as China and India, determined to establish themselves as the world’s newest great powers, have aggressively pursued their own space programmes. It was, after all Lyndon Johnson who said, when the Apollo programme was still in its infancy, that “first in space means first in everything”. Indeed, both nations are acutely aware that they will be playing catch-up in everything until they match and then exceed all of America’s achievements in space. As a result, they are busily planning manned missions to the Moon, resurrecting the extra-terrestrial ambitions of the United States, and indeed the Russian Federation, for the first time in 40 years.

Is it worth all the effort though? Lunar-sceptic Gerard DeGroot argued earlier this year that all space travel is a waste of money in his book Dark Side of the Moon, claiming “If the Chinese want that worthless rock, so be it.” Yet the political implications of winning the space race are well documented and indeed quite daunting. The credibility of a nation’s political system has long been tied to its ability to project its power on the global stage and beyond. It was this obsession with international prestige that drove the space race during the Cold War and it is no less relevant now. The symbolism of China, an autocratic Communist regime, overtaking the West in space would not be lost on the public. Keeping pace with them, therefore, is not just essential to staying first in space, but also to defending the very values upon which liberal democracy itself relies.

However, if we are to justify the expense of travelling to the Moon again, we need to do more than just land on it. Under the Bush administration, NASA drew up plans to establish a base on the Moon by the mid 2020s, followed by a manned mission to Mars shortly after. How likely this remains under President Obama, whose attitude towards space travel appears distinctly cooler than that of his predecessor, is unclear. Nevertheless, if the exploration of outer space is to have any role in the future of humanity, a base – and eventually a human colony – on the Moon will prove essential.

Sending a man, or woman, to Mars and possibly even the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would require the ability to launch and maintain interstellar vessels on a regular basis. The weak gravity of the Moon and the absence of any weather to delay or derail such missions make it an ideal launch and landing pad. Also, the Moon’s resources are ripe for exploitation, presenting the potential for the development of alternative energy sources that could prove vital in man’s battle against climate change right here on Earth. More importantly, as long as the world’s leading nations are investing their time, effort and money in the colonisation of the Moon and beyond, they’re not investing them in state of the art weapons to be used against each other.

There are many valid arguments against expanding the space programme to be sure, the cost and the myriad of alternative problems that the money could be used to resolve chief amongst them. However, such issues should not dissuade us from reaching for the stars; after all, the decade of the Apollo programme was also the decade of the Great Society. Should sceptics remain unconvinced, they would be wise to recall the words of President John F Kennedy in defence of his ambitious plan to land a man on the Moon: “Why climb the highest mountain? Why, thirty five years ago, fly over the Atlantic? We choose to go to the Moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills.”

Genetic testing and the corruption of science

Pre-implantation genetic testing or screening IVF embryos for signs of crippling disabilities, to use its sexier title, has been back in the papers again over the last few weeks. In little more than a year, the BBC tells us, a universal gene test, karyomapping, which can detect almost any inherited disease in a newly formed embryo, will go on sale to the masses for a paltry £2,500. Of course that is still dependent on the Bridge Centre Clinic, the developers of the technique, being granted a license to practice by the Human Fertilisation and Embryonic Authority, but then the public pressure generated from ‘good news’ stories like this should help to speed the process along nicely.

Naturally, the press has responded to the news with their trademark ‘slippery slope’ journalism bringing out all their greatest hits from previous debates including: designer babies, the annihilation of the disabled community etc. While genetic testing does carry very serious ethical implications, it always bothers me how we seem unable to debate it without resorting to such hysterics. However, what really bothers me is that nobody seems to have paid much attention to the most important question – does it even work?

The original aim of the technology, when it was first developed back in the 1980s by UK Professor Alan Handyside, was to improve the success rate of IVF by screening the chromosome counts of each newly created embryo before implanting it into the mother to be. An abnormal number of chromosomes automatically results in miscarriage –with the exception of Down’s Syndrome- so by ensuring only embryos with the right number of chromosomes were implanted, doctors hoped, the number of IVF babies successfully carried to term would dramatically increase.

However, a 2004 feature on the technique by New Scientist magazine revealed several problems. First, clinics in the U.S offering genetic tests to IVF patients did not have to report their findings to the government, so there was no impartial oversight of their effectiveness. Second, barely any clinical trials of the technology had been conducted, the most comprehensive one involving just 55 people, nowhere near enough to produce reliable results. Third, and most important, according to Professor Handyside himself, the accuracy of the tests was so questionable that as many as 1 in 10 of embryos discarded as ‘defective’ could actually have developed into healthy newborn babies. What’s more there was no evidence that the test helped more women to conceive using IVF than before.

What was wrong with the tests – aside from the absence of peer review and government oversight? Each screening, the results of which would determine whether to proceed with the IVF treatment in which countless parents had invested their savings, was carried out on just a single embryonic cell. This was problematic due to the fact that it is entirely possible for the extracted cell to possess abnormal numbers of chromosomes, or traces of any number of disabilities for that matter, while the embryo itself remains completely normal. Similarly, the reverse proved equally possible with at least one reported case of a baby being born with Down’s Syndrome after a genetic test failed to detect any problems with the original embryo.

So, what’s changed since then? The range of conditions detected by karyomapping has increased exponentially and the time taken to perform it substantially reduced. As a result, the number of IVF patients turning to genetic testing, and the number of embryos aborted, is likely to sky-rocket too. However the technique itself of testing a single cell for all these conditions remains exactly the same. As for independent oversight, the PHG Foundation, devoted to exploring the application of scientific research to healthcare complained last October that: “there have been no scientific publications describing the details of the new methodology, and no clear explanation of how exactly multiple genetic traits are identified.” To date, no clinical trials have been completed either. Preliminary tests boast a success rate of 100%, but that becomes less impressive upon realising they were carried out on just five embryos.

So, what does Professor Handyside have to say about the technique now? In an interview with the Times on July 1st, he was surprisingly on message, saying: “This is a truly universal test for genetic defects in embryos.” Is this because sometime after that previous interview in 2004, he had an epiphany and a sudden change of heart? Or could it be that as the Director of the Bridge Centre Clinic responsible for pioneering this universal test, he now stands to cash in on the fears and desperation of the IVF patients unable to conceive naturally? But then why let good science stand in the way of such a prime business opportunity?