


































Microsoft Word - Svetoslav Mars


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2016; 7(2):31-34  

31 

 

Short communication 

Planetary Protection for Mars: Time for Reconsideration 

Svetoslav Alexandrov 

Department of Experimental Algology, Institute of Plant Physiology and Genetics, Bulgarian 

Academy of Sciences 

Email: Saturn@gbg.bg  

 

Abstract: In this manuscript I discuss the ethics of the protection of hypothetical organisms 

on Mars in terms of upcoming manned space missions and subsequent colonization.  

 

Keywords: space, bioethics, Mars 

 

Introduction: Back in 2013 it looked very rational to hold the following neutral, neither 

strictly anthropocentric nor biocentric position: “The assumption about the existence of life on 

Mars should not be the reason to stop the red planet colonization, but precautions should be 

taken to minimize risks of introducing the Earth life on Mars, and to prevent Mars 

contamination” 1. After all, prospects of the existence of Mars life were generally not thought 

to be very high – it was either considered to be entirely in past tense, or currently existing 

underground.  

 

Three important things, however, have happened during the last two and a half years. First, it 

was the discovery of hydrated salts and possibly liquid water in present times on the recurring 

slope lineae on Mars 2. This increased the chance of Mars being inhabited even today, only in 

shallow depths, close to the surface. 

 

Second, people have started speaking openly against near-term manned missions to Mars on 

the basis of planetary protection. 

 

In 2015 the Planetary Society (an organization publicly involved in space advocacy) 

suggested a roadmap for Mars called “orbit first” 3. The roadmap envisions sending astronauts 

near the Moon throughout 2020s, to Mars orbit and Phobos in 2033 and to the surface of Mars 

in 2039. Thus the last step (a human mission to the surface of Mars) would happen after more 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2016; 7(2):31-34  

32 

 

than two decades. The planetary geologist and space blogger for the Planetary Society Emily 

Lakdawalla stated 4 that she supports this “orbit first” strategy, and that human beings should 

stay away from the Mars surface for a while, until robots conduct experiments concerning 

Mars water and life. Lakdawalla says that humans would contaminate Mars and after that it 

will be harder to answer the question whether we are alone in the Universe or not. Keith 

Cowing, an astrobiologist and a space journalist, has sharply criticized Lakdawalla’s position. 

He has stated that the Planetary Society does not want humans on Mars, that the Society 

wants to stretch a human program to the surface of Mars further in time due to the belief that 

human bodies do not belong there 5.  

 

Third, the time of interplanetary manned spaceflight is approaching, and the colonization of 

Mars is next. Private entrepreneur Elon Musk would like to send humans to Mars as soon as 

2024 6. This is in a stark contrast with what both NASA and the Planetary Society envision 

(mid- to late 30s). Although 2024 is a date that yet remains to be seen if it will be met, the 

private space industry has developed very fast in the last few years. 

 

Because of these events in the past two years and a half, it is time to quickly rethink the ethics 

and policies of planetary protection in terms of human space exploration and subsequent 

colonization. 

 

Discussion: Solar System planets and their satellites, with the exception of Earth, are harsh 

places and inhospitable for humans. Even Mars is more extreme than the most extreme places 

on Earth. Earth’s biological organisms cannot just be emplaced and expected to thrive on the 

present Martian surface 7. But could hypothetical life on Mars, which may be different from 

Earth life, exist there and be able not only to survive, but also grow and reproduce? We do not 

know yet. In terms of the planetary protection of such hypothetical life, we could still create 

artificial habitats on Mars and these are not necessary to be physically close to the places 

considered with a potential for life, such as the already mentioned recurring slope lineae 2, the 

features on Mars that have been connected with the action of liquid water. If these features 

host hypothetical local Martian microorganisms, we could keep human habitats far from these 

places with the intention to protect them. 

 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2016; 7(2):31-34  

33 

 

A task colonists on Mars could do in the more distant future is not just living there in 

protected habitats, but actually converting the planet and making it suitable for Earth’s life. 

This is a process called terraformation. But if the idea of terraformation ever comes to 

fruition, we will be changing the whole conditions of the planet. Plus, we will introduce the 

Martian surface to Earth organisms, especially photosynthetic species (like cyanobacteria and 

algae) which will be able to convert the already present carbon dioxide into oxygen. Do we 

have the right to do so, even at the cost of endangering hypothetical local organisms? Here we 

must remind the opinion of the prominent visionary Carl Sagan, one of the co-founders of The 

Planetary Society: “If there is life, then I believe we should do nothing to disturb that life. 

Mars then, belongs to the Martians, even if they are microbes” 8. 

 

The opinion of Carl Sagan, however, is one of several. As McKay has explained, except for 

the opinion that Mars should be left alone to the Martians, there are also opinions to alter 

Mars to a point its own biota could become a global biological system that controls the 

biogeochemical cycles of the planet, or to take samples of the whole hypothetical biodiversity 

on Mars and store them in biobanks, before spreading Earth life forms to the planet 9. As an 

author of this manuscript, in the light of recent opposition to human spaceflight to Mars, I 

have recently adopted more anthropocentric rather than biocentric position 10 for the following 

reasons: Firstly, anthropocentrism poses no fundamental moral objection to terraforming 

Mars. Secondly, space colonization activities would benefit humanity. And thirdly, even if the 

argument is raised that Mars life should be studied first before the planet is exploited, on 

anthropocentric grounds such objection doesn’t assign intrinsic worth to the extraterrestrial 

environment, because for the anthropocentrist it’s the humanity that counts 11.    

 

Thus my opinion differs from the biocentric opinions of Sagan and McKay (the later thinks 

terraforming is not fair concerning indigenous Martian life). I still think we should try to 

protect foreign life whenever possible, however the value of the human life is supreme. I 

firmly believe that we should first do everything to ensure survival of the humans, as they are 

currently the only known intelligent species in the Universe. Colonization of space and later 

terraformation will ensure our survival in long terms and should have higher priority. 

Preservation, while still very important in order to study the foreign life, should come second. 

Thus, some associated risks with colonization and terraformation of Mars concerning its 

hypothetical organisms are acceptable.  



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2016; 7(2):31-34  

34 

 

 

Conclusions: Due to the fact the time of manned interplanetary travel is approaching because 

of the fast private space industry's development, I state that scientists should reignite the 

debate about planetary protection and possible lessening of the requirements as soon as 

possible. I worry that current overprotection trends could stall the human exploration of Mars 

and subsequent colonization for years to come. 

 

References: 

1. Alexandrov S. A new rationale for space colonization. Space Col Journ 2013; 8:1-4.  

2. Ojha L, Wilhelm  MB, Murchie SL, McEwen AS, Wray JJ, Hanley J, Massé M et al. 

Spectral evidence for hydrated salts in recurring slope lineae on Mars. Nature Geoscience 

2015; 8(11): 829-832. 

3. The Planetary Society. Humans to Mars – Affordable and Possible. 2015 

http://hom.planetary.org/  (seen on Oct 2016) 

4. Lakdawalla E. NASA's Mars Announcement: Present-day transient flows of briny water on 

steep slopes. 2015 http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2015/09281219-nasas-

mars-announcement.html  (seen on Oct 2016) 

5. Cowing K. Planetary Society's Mars Mission Takes Longer To Do Less. 2015 

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/09/planetary-socie-4.html (seen on Oct 2016) 

6. Gough E. Elon Musk Is Sending Humans To Mars In 2024. 2016 

http://www.universetoday.com/129313/elon-musk-sending-humans-mars-2024/ (seen on Oct 

2016)  

7. Fogg M. Terraforming Mars: a review of current research. Adv Space Res 1998; 22(3): 

415-420. 

8. Sagan C. Blues for a Red Planet. Carl Sagan’s Cosmos Episode 5. 1980 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0759805/  (seen on Oct 2016)  

9. McKay CP. Let's put Martian Life First. The Planetary Report 2001; 21: 4-5. 

10. Alexandrov SD. Algal research in space: History, current status and future prospects.  

Innovare Journal of Life Sciences 2016; 1:1-4.  

11. Fogg MJ. The ethical dimensions of space settlement. Space Policy 2000; 16(3): 205-211. 

 

Conflict of Interest: Declared None. 

Author’s contribution: Author developed the conceptual idea and wrote the manuscript. 


