Participatory Technology Assessment for Mars Mission Planning: Public Values and Rationales

Public support and interest are needed to design an ambitious human spaceflight program. However, it is difficult to understand what the public values and would support. And it is even more challenging and rare to consider public views prior to actually developing a mission. Participatory technology assessment (pTA) is a method that aims to understand public preferences and values in order to inform upstream government decision-making. We assess a recently completed experiment in pTA, the "Informing NASA's Asteroid Initiative" project. Through a cooperative agreement with NASA, the Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology (ECAST) network conducted a pTA-based forum on NASA's Asteroid Initiative and the Journey to Mars. ECAST organized two citizen forums in Phoenix, Arizona and Boston, Massachusetts in November 2014, with a total of 183 citizens selected so as to minimize self-selection biases. This paper focuses on the "Journey to Mars" session, which had the primary goal of soliciting citizen perceptions about different Mars exploration scenarios and mission planning approaches. Citizens were given background information about three potential Mars exploration scenarios that NASA could carry out: 1) Crewed orbital mission to direct robots on the surface of Mars; 2) Short exploratory crewed mission to the surface of Mars; and 3) establishing a permanent settlement. Citizens then engaged in structured facilitated discussions about their preferences among the scenarios and NASA's mission planning approach. Using a grounded theory coding approach, we analyzed participants' written rationales and dialogue about Mars exploration. In general, participants did not show a strong preference for any particular mission profile, but there was a slight preference for the crewed orbital robotics scenario. Participants who supported this approach saw it as the quickest, safest, and least costly road to a successful mission. However, many participants were interested in seeing "boots on the ground," as they believed this would propel scientific advancement, increase excitement about space exploration, and make humans a "two-planet species.

Integrating Public Deliberation into Engineering Systems: Participatory Technology Assessment of NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission

We discuss an experiment employing participatory technology assessment (pTA), a public deliberation method for eliciting lay citizen input prior to making decisions about science and technology, to inform upstream engineering decisions concerning technical aspects of NASA's Asteroid Initiative. In partnership with NASA, the Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology network conducted a pTA-based forum on NASA's Asteroid Initiative in late 2014. The goal of the exercise was to assess citizens' values and preferences about potential asteroid detection, asteroid mitigation, and exploration-based technologies associated with NASA's Initiative. This paper discusses the portion of the forum that focused on the Asteroid Redirect Mission, an effort to redirect an asteroid into lunar orbit that astronauts can study. The forum sought public input on two options for performing the mission that NASA included in technical assessments to make a down select decision: Option A (capturing a 10-meter-diameter asteroid) or Option B (redirecting a several-meter-diameter boulder from the surface of a larger asteroid). We describe the values and perceptions participants had about Option A and B, how these results were used by NASA managers, and the impact the results of the participatory technology assessment had on the down select

Epistemic Standards for Participatory Technology Assessment: Suggestions Based Upon Well-Ordered Science

When one wants to use citizen input to inform policy, what should the standards of informedness on the part of the citizens be? While there are moral reasons to allow every citizen to participate and have a voice on every issue, regardless of education and involvement, designers of participatory assessments have to make decisions about how to structure deliberations as well as how much background information and deliberation time to provide to participants. After assessing different frameworks for the relationship between science and society, we use Philip Kitcher's framework of Well-Ordered Science to propose an epistemic standard on how citizen deliberations should be structured. We explore what potential standards follow from this epistemic framework focusing on significance versus scientific and engineering expertise. We argue that citizens should be tutored on the historical context of why scientific questions became significant and deemed scientifically and socially valuable, and if citizens report that they are capable of weighing in on an issue then they should be able to do so. We explore what this standard can mean by looking at actual citizen deliberations tied to the 2014 NASA ECAST Asteroid Initiative Citizen forums. We code different vignettes of citizens debating alternative approaches for Mars exploration based upon what level of information seemed to be sufficient for them to feel comfortable in making a policy position. The analysis provides recommendations on how to design and assess future citizen assessments grounded in properly conveying the historical value context surrounding a scientific issue and trusting citizens to seek out sufficient information to deliberate.Ethics & Philosophy of Technolog