Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your kid: ethical implications of pregnancy on missions to colonize other planets

Abstract

The colonization of a new planet will inevitably bring about new bioethical issues. One is the possibility of pregnancy during the mission. During the journey to the target planet or moon, and for the first couple of years before a colony has been established and the colony has been accommodated for children, a pregnancy would jeopardize the safety of the crew and the wellbeing of the child. The principal concern with a pregnancy during an interplanetary mission is that it could put the entire crew in danger. Resources such as air, food, and medical supplies will be limited and calculated to keep the crew members alive. We explore the bioethical concerns of near-future space travel.

Full text

R E S E A R C H Open Access
Mars ain’t the kind of place to raise your
kid: ethical implications of pregnancy on
missions to colonize other planets
Haley Schuster and Steven L. Peck
*
* Correspondence: steven_peck@
byu.edu
Originally presented at the Annual
International Mars Society
Convention, Washington, DC
August 13-16, 2015
Biology Department, Brigham
Young University, Provo, UT 84602,
USA
Abstract
The colonization of a new planet will inevitably bring about new bioethical issues.
One is the possibility of pregnancy during the mission. During the journey to the
target planet or moon, and for the first couple of years before a colony has been
established and the colony has been accommodated for children, a pregnancy
would jeopardize the safety of the crew and the wellbeing of the child. The principal
concern with a pregnancy during an interplanetary mission is that it could put the
entire crew in danger. Resources such as air, food, and medical supplies will be
limited and calculated to keep the crew members alive. We explore the bioethical
concerns of near-future space travel.
Introduction
A non-profit organization called Mars One has begun to sort through candidates to
take the nine month journey to Mars and establish a human colony with the goal to
make Mars habitable. The colonization of a new planet will inevitably bring about new
bioethical issues. One is that the possibility of pregnancy during the mission could
jeopardize the safety of the crew and the wellbeing of the child. Mars One has not
stated a hard-fast rule about preventing pregnancy, only that it will advise against it.
Solutions offered include having the astronauts permanently or temporarily sterilized
which would be the most certain way to prevent pregnancy. Mars One’s intention to
colonize a planet opens up a number of questions that it is not too early to start ex-
ploring. For example, what are the ethical implications of a space program requiring
the astronauts to be sterilized? What are the implications of potential reproduction in
space? A closer look at human reproduction in light of future space travel, however, is
warranted. Especially in light of calls for further consideration of women’s issues in
spaceflight (Drudi and Grenon, 2014). We focus especially on the implication of preg-
nancy during space fight and use Mars One as an illustration for our exploration.
Pregnancy in space
Pregnancy during a mission such as Mars One is dangerous because it could put the
entire crew in danger. Resources such as air, food, and medical supplies will be limited
and carefully gauged to keep the crew members alive. An unexpected addition to the
© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.
Schuster and Peck Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:10
DOI 10.1186/s40504-016-0043-5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

crew could put these carefully managed resource and risk calculations out of balance.
Moreover, anticipating such a contingency greatly increases the complexity and cost of
a mission. A pregnancy and child would put a strain on the mother and compromise
her ability to continue her necessary duties for the mission, therefore putting additional
workload on the remainder of the crew. Other crew members would be forced to com-
pensate but with few crewmembers (only four crew members are proposed by Mars
One) it would still be detrimental to have one of them facing the additional physical
challenges of pregnancy especially if there are complications due to the potential for
significant risk to the mother’s life. These dangers mean that preventing pregnancy will
be critical to the mission, suggesting that individuals selected for the mission may need
to be willing to give up their fertility permanently or temporarily for the well-being of
the crew and the mission.
Pregnancy in lower gravity environments has been shown to be feasible, but not with-
out challenges. Studies by Ijiri (2004) and Ronca (2003), show that animal pregnancies
and births occur in microgravity, indicating that such events could happen in the 40 %
gravity on Mars as well. However, mammal births on the International Space Station
(ISS) cited by Ronca were found to be more difficult during labor and were more likely
to result in stillbirths. This finding implies that a human birth would also be more diffi-
cult in microgravity.
Further evidence suggests that environmental factors such as low gravity and the
presence of cosmic radiation could have a detrimental effect on the fetus during devel-
opment. Substantial data has demonstrated that radiation can cause gross malforma-
tions, growth retardation, and central nervous system abnormalities in the fetus
(Straume, Blattnig, & Zeitlin, 2010).
Space agencies are already well aware of the dangers of cosmic radiation to astro-
nauts and measures are taken to provide adequate shielding, but the effects radiation
could have on a fetus have not been well-studied. The total amount of radiation astro-
nauts could potentially experience on their way to Mars was recently estimated by
equipment on the Curiosity rover’s spacecraft as it was en route to Mars. The radiation
level was estimated to be about 0.66 Sv (Zeitlin et al. 2013). This amount falls within
Table 1 Failure rate of various forms of contraception (Contraception, 2015)
Birth control method Failure rate
Implant 0.05 %
Male sterilization (vasectomy) 0.15 %
Levonorgestrel IUD 0.2 %
Female sterilization (tubal ligation) 0.5 %
Copper Intrauterine Device (IUD) 0.8 %
Injection (“shot”)6%
Oral contraceptives (“the pill”)9%
Patch 9%
Hormonal vaginal contraceptive ring 9 %
Diaphragm 12 %
Male condom 18 %
Female condom 21 %
Spermicides 28 %
Schuster and Peck Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:10 Page 2 of 8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

the range in which the risk of birth defects increases substantially (McCollough et al.
2007). Additionally, solar flare events can occur and temporarily increase the radiation
dose even if there is adequate shielding for normal conditions. If a Martian base were
established, the radiation on the surface of Mars could be even more problematic since
space suits cannot shield as much radiation as a habitat structure or spacecraft could,
so an astronaut who is pregnant would need to restrict the time she spends outside. Al-
though, a pregnant female astronaut would not likely fit EVA suits provided should
emergency use be needed.
In addition to the health concerns of a pregnant astronaut there is evidence that de-
creased gravity negatively affects fetal development. Experiments performed with preg-
nant rats in the NASA Space Shuttle provide evidence that lack of gravity disrupts the
development of the vestibular system (Ronca et al. 2008). This finding means a child
conceived during the flight to Mars could have problems balancing and orienting him
or herself on the surface of Mars. Studies using human bone marrow stem cells found
a significant effect on cells in microgravity and fewer cells were generated (Davis et al.,
1996). Since cell proliferation was decreased in these human stem cells, it is likely that
the space environment could cause the fetus to develop abnormally (e.g., see also
Zhang et al. 2016; Beck et al., 2012; Ogneva, 2015). A child with birth defects, or one
born prematurely, would be more difficult to care for in an environment with such lim-
ited resources. This suggests that bearing a healthy baby is less likely on such a mission,
and therefore the negative consequences of pregnancy suggest this possibility should be
actively mitigated against.
The health of mother and crew
Pregnancy on the mission would also pose a greater risk to the mother. Although one
or two of the astronauts will receive comprehensive medical training and medical
equipment to treat anticipated illnesses or injuries will be available, the crew will likely
not be prepared to assist with birth complications or provide care for a newborn.
Should something go wrong during the pregnancy or birth, the crew may not have the
skills or supplies necessary to keep the mother and child safe. Further, the confined en-
vironment of the ship and the lack of gravity could pose additional challenges for neo-
natal care. The wellbeing of the mother and child could be greatly compromised if
complications should arise. Surgeries have been completed successfully on rats in
microgravity (Campbell Mark et al. 2005), however the time in surgery was longer com-
pared with surgeries in Earth gravity. Moreover, despite the success of these surgeries,
it seems likely that microgravity would pose other unexpected challenges for human
surgery. For example, it has also been shown that microorganisms thrive in micro-
gravity environments (Horneck et al. 2010). Factors such as disease virulence, infect-
ability, and transference in microgravity are largely understudied. In addition,
resistance factors of disease organisms might also be modified in space. Researchers
suggest that pregnant women may be at greater risk for contracting an illness in space
(Santy & Jennings, 1992).
Pathogens may spread among the crew more easily in the cramped conditions of a
spacecraft. The observation that astronauts’immune systems are suppressed due to
microgravity is well established (Martinez et al. 2015) and it has been shown that “im-
mune system dysregulation occurs during flight”(Sams et al. 2015). NASA researchers
Schuster and Peck Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:10 Page 3 of 8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

expect that an impaired immune system could pose a major risk for longer space
flights, such as the one to Mars. Connections between stress levels and changes in the
immune system’s ability to react properly are well documented, which suggests that the
extra stress a pregnancy would surely cause will likely have a negative effect on the
mother’s immune system. With an increased risk to the mother, it would be better to
take measures to prevent pregnancy for the health of the mother, as well as the greater
good of the crew and the mission.
Sex in space
Human sex drive has been found to persist when humans are isolated in a small group
for an extended time. At this time, NASA’s policy forbids sex in space, and there have
been no confirmed instances of it happening, but the lengthy trip to Mars and even
starting a colony could result in sex occurring. There have been seven recorded preg-
nancies and more undisclosed due to privacy policies in remote Antarctic research sta-
tions, where small crews are isolated together for long months in similarly stressful and
dangerous environments (Stuster, 2011). This is unexpectedly high for a group of highly
trained, professional scientists. Thus, with a mixed gender crew, sexual intercourse is
likely during the years of the crew’s isolation on a mission to colonize Mars or any such
long term space exploration. Perhaps an effective training program could inspire crew
members to place solidarity of the group ahead of personal interests. Such a perspec-
tive, if possible to maintain, would greatly reduce the occurrences of sexual activity, but
it cannot guarantee abstinence. Therefore, extra precautions for such a long-duration
mission are necessary.
Pregnancy must have been enough of a problem or concern that in 2011, the U.S.
Antarctic Program instituted a new rule requiring all women of childbearing years to
take a pregnancy test before being cleared to live in Antarctica. Their reasoning for
prohibiting pregnant women is
“Because clinics at U.S. stations are not equipped or staffed to provide adequate
prenatal care, manage obstetric emergencies, or perform abortions, medical
evacuation may be necessary. There are few transportation options during the
isolated Antarctic winter. Consequently, pregnancy puts not only the mother and
unborn child at risk but also the flight crews and other station personnel.”(United
States Antarctic Program).
With long-duration space travel, such as the trip to Mars, these same concerns would
be even more important because evacuating or receiving necessary pregnancy-related
supplies would not be an option. Since there is no way to evacuate a pregnant woman
during a trip to Mars, preventing a pregnancy from even occurring becomes crucial,
thus the importance of temporary or permanent sterilization. Upon the announcement
of this new policy, some feared that this would result in women being treated differ-
ently or unfairly in the hiring process (Carmon, 2011). Similar concerns would arise
from a requirement for astronauts to be temporarily or permanently sterilized.
Terrestrial space flight analogs, that is, isolated confined environments such as Navy
ships and submarines can provide insight into this kind of problem. In the Navy, it has
been reported that pregnancies occurring while on duty on ships make up less than
Schuster and Peck Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:10 Page 4 of 8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

one percent of the Total Force (Daniel, 2013). While this means there is only a small
number of pregnancies that occur in such situations, it does show that pregnancies do
in fact occur in such stressful, confined, rigid environments. According to the Navy
press release cited above, the low percentage is due to the educational programs the
Navy provides about contraception methods and family planning. It is probably also
safe to assume that getting pregnant while on operational duty is highly discouraged in
their training. But, despite all the training the Navy provides, pregnancies do still occur.
One study performed by the Center for Naval Analysis reported that every year a sig-
nificant number of unplanned personnel losses from Navy ships are due to pregnancy
(Garcia, 1999), although the actual number is not available. This data is for the whole
Navy, on ships with much bigger crews than the four person Mars crew, but it does
provide information that pregnancies do happen in high stress, confined environments
such as those on Navy ships.
The issue of a pregnancy on a submarine has only come to light recently because
only a few countries allowed women to serve on submarines (Kane and Horn 2001).
Starting in 2016, women will be serving on United States Navy submarines. This new
development has been met with controversy and opposition. Some of the arguments
against adding women to submarine crews involve the possibility of women getting
pregnant during tours of duty. One concern is the potential contamination of the fil-
tered air and the presence of high levels of carbon dioxide, both of which could be
harmful to a developing fetus (Kane and Horn 2001). At present, the effects of sub-
marine air on fetus development have not been studied (Kane and Horn 2001). Mars
spaceships and colonies will similarly be totally confined, self-sustaining environ-
ments, so contaminated air and high levels of carbon dioxide could be a problem for
them as well.
While these comparable situations can be helpful in predicting potential issues in a
Mars trip, the consequences of a pregnancy are not as great. Pregnant women in these
situations can be removed from isolated and dangerous situations, and can go home. A
rescue mission for astronauts would take longer than a full term pregnancy to orches-
trate. Further, the dangers associated with a pregnancy are not as high in an Earth grav-
ity environment. Therefore, the consequences of using less effective contraceptive
measures are not as great. Astronauts on a Mars mission will need to use more effect-
ive methods.
Contraception in space
There is a possibility that it could be easier to become pregnant in microgravity. Radi-
ation exposure will likely reduce sperm count, but there is evidence that suggests sperm
cells swim faster in microgravity. One study found that sperm is affected by small
changes in gravity and found that fertilization in hypergravity was slowed down (Tash,
Kim, Schuber, Seibt, & Kinsey, 2001). A similar study in microgravity, or even reduced
gravity, still needs to be performed, but Tash, et al. propose that an opposite effect may
occur in microgravity. If fertilization could potentially occur faster, other contraceptive
methods may not be able to work as well, and therefore sterilization may be a more ef-
fective choice.
Table 1 shows the success rate of various forms of contraception (Contraception,
2015). The most effective methods of contraception are sterilization and long-acting
Schuster and Peck Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:10 Page 5 of 8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

reversible contraception, which essentially amounts to temporary sterilization.
Sterilization methods, including permanent and temporary, are the only birth control
methods besides abstinence that are nearly one hundred percent effective (Suszynski
2014) each with less than 1 % failure rate (Contraception, 2015).
Permanent methods include vasectomy and female tubal ligations, and even hysterec-
tomy. Reversals of vasectomies and tubal ligations are possible, but they are costly and
there is a low success rate of regaining fertility.
Temporary sterilization methods include the copper intrauterine device (IUD), pro-
gesterone IUD, and progesterone implant. These can last for ten years, three or five
years, and 3 years, respectively. Depending on how long it takes a proposed colony to
be ready for children, the temporary methods may or may not last long enough, and re-
placements may be needed. All other birth control methods rely on human responsibil-
ity to regulate their effectiveness. The next best option after the sterilization methods is
the progestin shot given every three months and has a typical use failure rate of 6 %.
This and other methods such as condoms or “the pill”are less effective (ranging from 9
to 28 % failure rate) and require supplies and check-ups that may not be available on
the mission, whereas sterilization is a onetime procedure. The supplies and packaging
that would be required for non-sterilization contraception would take up precious
cargo space and may not even retain its effectiveness for the length of time needed; es-
pecially for the Mars One plan. Further, it is not known if the constant bombardment
of radiation on the contraceptives would decrease their effectiveness or not.
Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the necessity of sterilization on a
Mars mission, specific ethical arguments have been advanced against the idea of
sterilization and even contraceptives in general, and similar arguments could be formed
against this requirement. In most ethical traditions, the right to reproduce is a funda-
mental freedom. Requiring permanent or temporary sterilization would infringe upon
the right of each astronaut to reproduce. The right to choose which medical procedures
are performed on one’s body is also commonly upheld, and requiring astronauts to go
through the process of sterilization or use the temporary methods may hinder that
right as well. This policy may feel discriminatory against those that want to retain their
fertility or have personal objections to undergoing the procedures or using the tempor-
ary methods. To avoid forcing astronauts into doing something that goes against their
personal beliefs, it will be important for these requirements to be clearly laid out from
the time they are put in place. That way, a person who does not wish to fulfill the re-
quirement of becoming infertile may choose a different path. The necessity of being in-
fertile during a long duration space flight is so essential for the safety of the whole
crew, that the astronauts will have to give up their right to reproduce freely. While this
requirement may seem drastic or harsh, it will be necessary to prevent the crew mem-
bers from endangering each other.
Common arguments against contraceptives include claims that it goes against the
goals of a Mars colony, is anti-life, prevents people who could benefit humanity from
being born, leads to immoral behavior, and that it goes against many religious beliefs.
In this case, Mars astronauts may only need to be sterilized for a decade or so before a
colony is set up well for children, although the colony’s child-readiness could likely
happen beyond their lifetimes or fertility years. Regarding arguments that contracep-
tives are effective enough, the catastrophic consequences of a mission pregnancy
Schuster and Peck Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:10 Page 6 of 8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

suggest that sterilization is necessary to preserve the lives of the crew by preventing an
unexpected increase in resource requirements. The children born would have a higher
risk of intellectual and physical disabilities which would strain resources. Further, it’s
unlikely that sexual activity can be prevented. It is also possible that extended periods
of radiation on the surface of Mars may eventually make the astronauts sterile; it is a
risk inherent to the mission.
Those who see sterilization as morally wrong either from religious or deontological
perspectives may have to carefully consider participation in such a mission. Those with
such views do not have to be a part of the mission and they should not prevent others
from taking this safety precaution. The catastrophic nature of a pregnancy on such a
mission suggests that all crew members must take the necessary precautions to protect
against this possibility. The question still remains, however, if the responsibility of
avoiding pregnancy lies on all crew members, or only the ones capable of becoming
pregnant. If the goal is to decrease the chance of any crew member becoming preg-
nant as much as possible, then it would follow that all crew members must be per-
manently or temporarily infertile. The group as a whole needs to be infertile.
Sterilization would not be necessary for single sex crews or crews with women who
have undergone menopause.
Based on the evidence gathered thus far, sterilization appears to be the best choice of ac-
tion for preventing pregnancy during preliminary missions to Mars. A utilitarian approach
seems mandated to reduce negative consequences for the group as a whole. Therefore,
ethically, it seems desirable to require astronauts to be sterilized. Temporary or perman-
ent, sterilization is a more certain way to prevent the negative effects a pregnancy could
have on the entire crew such as danger to the mother, abnormalities in the fetus, and lim-
ited resources for the crew, and to better ensure the safety and well-being of all.
Conclusions
We have not discussed a number of other considerations that will require future work.
For example, the psychological stresses and harms that might come from a pregnancy
in space have not been considered. Others may want to further explore the ethical
question of requiring permanent or temporary sterilization from the perspective of dif-
ferent ethical perspectives such as differing religious orientations. One related ethical
question that should be explored is whether it is ethical to require the burden of preg-
nancy prevention to fall only on women. Additionally, how can the mission planners
avoid burdening only women with the responsibility of contraception if there are no
equally effective temporary contraceptive methods for men. Furthermore, the medical
effects of sterilization on women are more substantial and invasive, while vasectomy is
known to be safe and effective. Finally, if a woman were to conceive mid-mission, how
would current debates about abortion play out and should medical procedures and re-
sources be in place to make this option available? More research needs to be done to
better understand the dangers of pregnancy on such a long duration space mission.
Space agencies considering a mission to Mars (to visit or colonize) will want to con-
sider these and other ethical questions in order to better ensure the safety and well-
being of their crews.
Acknowledgements
With apologies to Elton John’s song Rocket Man.
Schuster and Peck Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:10 Page 7 of 8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Authors’contributions
HS wrote the initial paper upon which this was based; Peck added content and perspective. The individual contributions
are intermingled throughout the text, but contributions are about, HS 80 % and SLP 20 %. All authors read and approved
the final manuscript.
Authors' information
HS is a 2015 BS Neuroscience graduate from Brigham Young University. SLP is an Associate Professor of Biology at
Brigham Young University where he teaches and researches in computational ecology, bioethics and the history and
philosophy of biology.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 29 September 2015 Accepted: 9 August 2016
References
Beck M, Tabury K, Moreels M, Jacquet P, Van Oostveldt P, De Vos WH, Baatout S. Simulated microgravity decreases
apoptosis in fetal fibroblasts. Int J Mol Med. 2012;30:309–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/ijmm.2012.1001.
Campbell Mark R, Williams DR, Buckey JC, Kirkpatrick AW. Animal Surgery during Spaceflight on the Neurolab Shuttle
Mission. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2005;76(6):589. Print.
Carmon Irin. 2011. Want to Work in Antarctica? Take The Mandatory Pregnancy Test First. Jezebel. Retrieved from
http://jezebel.com/5739118/want-to-work-in-antarctica-take-the-mandatory-pregnancy-test-first
Contraception. (2015). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/
reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm
Daniel AL. (2013). CSADD Encourages Family Planning During Your Navy Career. Retrieved from: http://www.navy.mil/
submit/display.asp?story_id=71328
Davis TA, Wiesmann W, Kidwell W, Cannon T, Kerns L, Serke C, …Lee KP. Effect of Spaceflight on Human Stem Cell
Hematopoiesis: Suppression of Erythropoiesis and Myelopoiesis. Journal of Leukocyte Biology. 1996;60(1), 69-76.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8699125
Drudi L, Grenon SM. Women’s Health in Spaceflight. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2014;85(6):645–52. doi:10.3357/ASEM.3889.2014.
Garcia F. Women at sea: Unplanned losses and accession planning. Center for Naval Analyses. CRM. 1999;98-182.
Horneck G, Klaus DM, Mancinelli RL. Space microbiology. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2010;74(1):121–56.
Ijiri K. Ten years after medaka fish mated and laid eggs in space and further preparation for the life-cycle experiment
on ISS. Biol Sci Space. 2004;18(3):138–9. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15858359.
Kane J, Horn W. The Medical Implications of Women on Submarines. Groton, Ct: Naval Submarine Medical Research
Laboratory; 2001. Retrieved from: www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA400035.
Martinez E, Yoshida M, Candelario T, Hughes-Fulford M. Spaceflight and simulated microgravity cause a significant reduction
of key gene expression in early T-cell activation. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2015;308(6):R480–8.
McCollough C, Schueler B, Atwell T, Braun N, Regner D, Brown D, Leroy A. Radiation exposure and pregnancy: When
should we be concerned? Radiographics. 2007;27(4):909–U5.
Ogneva IV. Early development under microgravity conditions. Biophysics. 2015;60(5):849–58. doi:10.1134/S0006350915050140.
Ronca AE, Fritzsch B, Bruce LL, Alberts JR. Orbital spaceflight during pregnancy shapes function of mammalian
vestibular system. Behav Neurosci. 2008;122(1):224–32.
Ronca AE. Studies toward birth and early mammalian development in space. Adv Space Res. 2003;32(8):1483–90.
Sams C, Stowe R, Uchakin P, Crucian B, Mehta S, Morukov B, Pierson D. Validation of procedures for monitoring
crewmember immune function (integrated immune). National Aeronatics and Space Agency (NASA). 2015.
Retrieved from: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/632.html#images
Santy PA, Jennings RT. Human reproductive issues in space. Adv Space Res. 1992;12(2-3):151–5.
Straume T, Blattnig S, Zeitlin C. Radiation hazards and the colonization of Mars: Brain, body, pregnancy, in-utero
development, cardio, cancer, degeneration. J Cosmol. 2010;12:3992–4033.
Stuster J. Bold Endeavors: Lessons from polar and space exploration. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press; 2011.
Suszynski M. The 11 Best Birth Control Options for Women. 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.everydayhealth.com/
sexual-health-pictures/the-11-best-birth-control-options-for-women.aspx#10.
Tash JS, Kim S, Schuber M, Seibt D, Kinsey W. Fertilization of sea urchin eggs and sperm motility are negatively
impacted under low hypergravitational forces significant to space flight. Biol Reprod. 2001;65(4):1224–31.
doi:10.1095/biolreprod65.4.1224.
Zeitlin C, Hassler DM, Cucinotta FA, Ehresmann B, Wimmer-Schweingruber RF, Brinza DE, Kang S, Weigle G, Bottcher S,
Bohm E, Burmeister S, Guo J, Kohler J, Martin C, Posner A, Rafkin S, Reitz G. Measurements of energetic particle
radiation in transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory. Science. 2013;340(6136):1080–4.
Zhang S, Zheng D, Wu Y, Lin W, Chen Z, et al. Simulated microgravity using a rotary culture system compromises the in
vitro development of mouse preantral follicles. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0151062. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151062.
Schuster and Peck Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2016) 12:10 Page 8 of 8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com