Notes_for Planetary Biology Discussion - Febr. 21, 1959

The purpose of this meeting is to introduce the problems of planetary
biology as a serious subject of experimental planning in national and
international programs of space research. Unless informed biologists
devote themselves to these problems now, unique opportunities may be
irreparably lost. It seems important (1) to formulate a tangible prospectus
of planetary biology, drawing on as wide a range of interest and talent
as possible and (2) to find or create channels of information and advice
to and from other scientists in space research and the agencies responsible
for the execution of the experiments. It hardly has to be mentioned that
the problem is entangled in a web of domestic and international "politics"!
but the organization of NASA should be a decisive step in bringing order
out of chaos and encouraging the primacy of scientific justifications
for space projects.

How to get a cldarer picture of the organization for space research
is certainly one of our problems. As | understand iit, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has primary responsibility
for scientific l projects, and it presumably also speaks to ARPA in the
Defense Department in scientific issues. NASA is the operatiag agency
and is just organizing, in detail, its working groups. It has been advised
by a Space Service Board of the National Academy of Sciences (NSA), one of
whose subcommittees is ‘General Space Projects'' and is headed by Bruno iRossi
(Professor of Physics at MIT). As microbiology is not now extensively
represented on the Space Board, Rossi has asked that his subcommittee be
advised by ad hoc groups of lworking biologists. At my own suggestion, two
regional groups (Boston and San Francisco) are being set up to save time
and travel as compared to a pancontinental one in Washington. It may well
be worth whilelto maintain local foci where we might meet more often in
informal and convenient context. Our proposals will be summarized and
forwarded to Rossi and perhaps also distributed much more widely. (Effective
procedure is of lcourse an important item for our own consideration.)

No security questions are involved; we should certainly leave any public
announcements to the official group to whom we are, in the first instance

reporting. Expenses for the meeting are being paid by the NAS.

Lae
Particularly in biological exploration, a purely national program
would be futéle. I do not know what commitment, if any, the USSR has
made itowards international cooperation. To succeed the IGY, a continuing
international Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) has been organized
as an adjunct to the ICSU (International Committee of Scientific Unions).
CETEX (Committee on Contamination By Extra-Terrestrial Exploration) now
reports to COSPAR. Its first meeting, held in May 1958 was reported in
Science, for October 17, 1958. (No Russiens and no microbiologists are
represented.) Their report is a constructive document and | urge all of
you to study it. CETEX has been tinstructed to draw up a ''code of condact'!
and will meet March 9. The imminence of this meeting, and of further U.S.
and USSR moonshots Iplaces some urgency on our meeting. Ouc'r report will
certainly influence both CETEX and NASA, though of course the policy decisions
are their responsibility. The Boston group has already met and their
report will be circulated to you.

The immense theoretical importance of planetary biology has not until
now been reflected in any serious discussion among the microbiologists,
geneticists, biophysicists, etc., who should be most cogently concerned.
A purpose of these meetings is to excite your own latent interest, to
communicate this to your colleagues so that there will be a sufficiently
deep source of inspiration and criticism to insure an orderly and effective
program.

A tentative agenda ia enclosed. It was drawn up‘arbitrarily to help
us use our time most efficiently. 1! will preface it with the sugggstion that
Lunar Exploration is our most immediate problem. (1) %6 there any possibility
of biologically interesting material on the moon? (2) If so, could it be
hnadvertently spoiled, and what should be cautioned against? (3) What
constructive measures do we have? My uncertainty about (1) has been deepened
by controversial reports of "obscugatsoll' (=haze=?moisture) of a lunar
crater (Alter, 1957) and spectroscopic evidence of gaseaus emissions (Kozyrev 1958).
If there is any uncertainty as to the possible persistence of subsurface moisture,
presumably by continuous seepage from deeper layers, the moon like the other nearby
planets qualifies as a possible habitat for biota of terrestrial origin, and the
risk of effective contamination is greatly magnified.

Looking forward to seeing you,

Joshua Lederberg