Biospherian handshake: Mark Nelson with John Allen (left), inventor and Ex- ecutive Chairman of the Biosphere 2 project and Academician Oleg Gazenko, Director, Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow (photo by Abigail Alling, Biosphere 2, 1991–1993). 

... the glass. Efforts to ensure privacy when needed included private crew bedrooms (which other crew needed permission to enter). The entire habitat area occupied the second floor out of view of visitors, private phone lines, computers for sending/receiv- ing email. Interior space and dense growth in biomes also provided privacy in secluded locations. 9. Social valency, personality conflicts and cabin fever . Scientists have observed that larger crew sizes enhance social diversity but increase the danger of schisms and subgroup factions (ISU, 2009). The Biosphere 2 crew worked together extensively during training and came in as friends, in some cases long-term friends, but tensions inside split the group. Nevertheless, they had to work together on many tasks, share some 2200 meals together, and in- teract daily with the same group of seven others. The two groups which cohered better socially took opposite sides of the management conflict. Cabin fever refers to annoyances that can build up when there is no escape. Admiral Byrd noted: “I knew of one who could not eat unless he could find a place in the mess hall out of view of a [person] who solemnly chewed twenty-eight times before swallowing. In a polar camp, little things like that have the power to drive even disciplined men to the brink of insani- ty” (Byrd, 1938). 10. Oxygen decline, elevated carbon dioxide . Amongst the most unexpected and interesting occurrences of the first two years was a gradual decline in oxygen, falling from 20.9% to around 14% over the first sixteen months (Severinghaus et al., 1994; Nelson and Dempster, 1996). Probably because atmospheric pressure did not change, there could not be the same adaptation as in mountain- climbers. Several crew developed sleep apnea (though supple- mented by oxygen lines run to their bedrooms at night from the analytic laboratory) and, coupled with the caloric restricted diet, this diminished energy and possibly cognitive abilities (Walford and Spindler, 1997; Walford et al., 1996) until oxygen was replen- ished 16 months into the closure. Carbon dioxide levels were much higher than ambient, reaching highs of over 4000 ppm during win- ter months (Nelson and Dempster, 1996). These levels are compa- rable to Space Shuttle at 5000–10,000 ppm and International Space Station levels at under 2000 to 9000 ppm (James et al., 2011). 11. Sex/gender . There were four women and four men in the crew. There were two couples who bonded before entry (and remain together twenty years after the closure experiment). Two individuals were in no sexual relationship, and two left partners outside. The tensions underlying actual and fantasized sexual li- aisons or attractions – jealousy, intrigue – always powerful in human groupings, perhaps grow more so in isolated, confined groups. Psychological studies on male Antarctic and submarine crews were one of the vectors that led to a decision for an equal gender mix in Biosphere 2. Including women has been found to relieve pressure and help normalize the culture of isolated groups. Women perform as well or better than men in these circumstances (Connors et al., 1985). 1. Perceived historic importance of undertaking . Studies of submarine crew demonstrate that people selected for challenging environments are highly motivated to perform in very difficult circumstances (Helmreich, 1974). The biospherians had volunteered and competed with a larger group of candidates for the privi- lege of carrying out the unprecedented closure experiments. They had extensive training and were key participants in the construction, botanical/animal collections and preparations for the experiment. As has been noted of astronauts and other expeditionary crew, belief that what one is doing is of historic importance of- ten influences the willingness to deal with hardship and stress (Suedfeld, 1991). The “heroic mode” can also lead to people push- ing themselves past their maximum (Allen, 2002). 2. Diversity of shared and private spaces within Biosphere 2 . For a confined environment, the facility offered relatively spacious and attractive locations for both shared and private functions (these are detailed in Alling et al., 2002). Bechtel et al. (1997) identified some 50 behavior settings and found that each biospherian had 3.5 behavior settings, more than three times that available to the population of a small town. Each had a personal apartment with upstairs sleeping loft and downstairs living room. 3. Communications with the outside . The closure experiments (1991–1994) coincided with early years of the Internet, and email and video linkups with Mission Control and consulting scientists and engineers were available. Telephones were installed at a place where crew could speak with friends/family. Evolution of communications change the nature of isolation and confinement. So while only eight people lived inside Biosphere 2, biospherians main- tained a complex social life through meetings at the glass (Fig. 4) and digital communications. 4. Creative expressions through the arts . The biospherians painted, wrote poetry, performed music and pursued photogra- phy/video. One crew member did an electronic link with a performance artist traveling around the world during the two year closure. There were occasions when the biospherians held “inter- biospheric arts festivals” presenting their work and listening, see- ing the work of outside artists (Fig. 5). Many kept journals, wrote scientific and popular papers and books including a cook book of the best recipes (Silverstone, 1993). 5. Public and school support . Biospherians got morale boosts interacting with enthusiastic and supportive visitors. They did linkups with school groups – from K-12 to university groups – either with those directly outside the facility (linked by 2-way radios) or via phone. 6. Nature and beauty . Biosphere 2 was designed to be beautiful and awe-inspiring. Minimizing or eliminating off-gassing of materials was a design priority. The interiors utilized natural fibers and wood wherever possible, and the healing effect of being sur- rounded by luxuriant vegetation helped mitigate the feeling that the crew was deprived and isolated. A growing body of evidence supports the health and psychological benefits of an environment with green plants (Clay, 2001). The environment was pollution- free compared to urban settings. There was more natural diversity encountered inside Biosphere 2 than is available to most people (Fig. 6). 7. Feeling yourself a vital part of a larger whole . As space crews also reported, the biospherians felt like they could respond to whatever their world needed – changing irrigation times, maintaining and repairing equipment, preventing invasive species from over-running areas of the biomes, working to maximize use of “sunfall” with additional plantings to counteract CO 2 rise and increase food supply. Connectedness of all vectors was an important factor in why Biosphere 2 could operate – and the feeling of being able to respond empowers. Each biospherian reported a deep sense of being part of a living system. The crew were caretakers, keeping machinery going to ensure water availability, temperature control, etc. They also realized that without their ecosystem, they would not survive. Understanding that Biosphere 2 was the crew’s “life boat” (life support system) may have helped the success of the mission. The crew understood that “the health of the biosphere is synonymous with our health” (Alling and Nelson, 1993). The Biosphere 2 crew, for the first closure experiment, ranged in age from 29 to 67, from different socio-economic backgrounds, from technically skilled high school graduates to graduate level professionals and medical doctor. Five were from the US, two from the UK and one from Belgium. All candidates received extensive and intensive training prior to the closure. They had all worked in small group settings at various remote settings such as Institute of Ecotechnics-consulted projects in West Australia and aboard an ocean-going ship learning mar- itime skills, and creating and performing theatrical pieces. They had also worked at the Biosphere 2 facility during construction, operating the onsite prototype farm and other systems developed for the facility. They started with others in a larger group of biospherian candidates, and finally trained as a team preparing for the closure experiment. An important tool for dealing with group dynamics in Biosphere 2 was familiarity with the work of W.R. Bion who studied small group behavior (Allen, 2002). Working at the Tavistock Clinic in the UK in the 1940s, he worked with “shell-shocked” (the then current term for post traumatic stress disorder) pilots relieved of duty during World War 2. The objective was to see if they could return to health and rejoin their combat unit. Bion demonstrated that a small group operates under specific patterns of behavior differing from individuals or large groups. This unconsciously generated behavior, unless brought to light, defeat a task group’s commitment to achieve their purpose. Specifically he discovered three sets of unconscious behavior in small groups (Bion, 1961). These operate during “group animal” mode, as op- posed to the “task group” mode, which carries out their accepted task, and can be short-lived or can operate for extended periods of time when the group has lapsed off-task. All three of these behavior patterns sabotage the task. One dysfunctional characteristic is an unrealistic treatment of resources and the time needed for completion of tasks. (1) Fight/Flight, in which the group alternates between fighting, and fleeing from the task. This manifests in a myriad of ways such as not showing up at meetings or constant arguing about strategy and purpose. (2) Pairing, in which the group abdicates leadership and think- ing to a twosome, then passively waits for that pair to decide what the group should do. (3) ...

... and consulting scientists and engineers were available. Telephones were installed at a place where crew could speak with friends/family. Evolution of commu- nications change the nature of isolation and confinement. So while only eight people lived inside Biosphere 2, biospherians main- tained a complex social life through meetings at the glass (Fig. 4) and digital communications. . Creative expressions through the arts. The biospherians painted, wrote poetry, performed music and pursued photogra- phy/video. One crew member did an electronic link with a per- formance artist traveling around the world during the two year closure. There were occasions when the biospherians held "inter- ...