Review of NASA's Evidence Reports on Human Health Risks

NASA has requested a study from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to provide an independent review of more than 30 evidence reports on human health risks for long duration and exploration spaceflight. The evidence reports, which are publicly available, are categorized into five broad categories: (1) behavioral health and performance; (2) human health countermeasures (with a focus on bone metabolism and orthopedics, nutrition, immunology, and cardiac and pulmonary physiology); (3) radiation; (4) human factors issues; and (5) exploration medical capabilities. The reports are revised on an ongoing basis to incorporate new scientific information. In conducting this study, an IOM ad hoc committee will build on the 2008 IOM report Review of NASA's Human Research Program Evidence Books. That report provided an assessment of the process used for developing the evidence reports and provided an initial review of the evidence reports that had been completed at that time. Each year, NASA staff will identify a set of evidence reports for committee review. Over the course of the study all evidence reports will be reviewed. The committee will hold an annual scientific workshop to receive input on the evidence reports it is reviewing that year and an update on the recent literature. The committee will issue an annual letter report that addresses the following questions relevant to each evidence report: 1. Does the evidence report provide sufficient evidence, as well as sufficient risk context, that the risk is of concern for long-term space missions? 2. Does the evidence report make the case for the research gaps presented? 3. Are there any additional gaps in knowledge or areas of fundamental research that should be considered to enhance the basic understanding of this specific risk? 4. Does the evidence report address relevant interactions among risks? 5. Is input from additional disciplines needed? 6. Is the breadth of the cited literature sufficient? 7. What is the overall readability and quality? 8. Is the expertise of the authors sufficient to fully cover the scope of the given risk? 9. Has the evidence report addressed previous recommendations made by the IOM in the 2008 letter report?