Science and Culture: The Inside Story of Biosphere - Assignment Example

Science and Culture: The Inside Story of Biosphere Introduction For most people, the concept of failure is a tough thing to deal with, and people often find ways of either denouncing the failure or dealing with it. In science, however, failure is upheld as a source of learning and gaining more in-depth knowledge on a topic. Within the scientific field, experiments are an integral constituent that bring about advances in knowledge, as well as development of new technologies, devices and systems. Erickson (2005) implicitly cites the importance of experiments as scientific systems where parameters within a hypothesis are employed to bring about collectable results. This paper reviews the probability of coming up with a biosphere in the near future which can sustain life on another planet and work autonomously. In an experiment which was dubbed “Biosphere 2”, a group of eight persons, consisting of four women and four men, were used to establish whether or not people can live and maintain themselves using air, water and food while living in a controlled and enclosed environment. The group was held in the diminutive biosphere complete with permanent living stations and a provision for waste products. Essentially, the key focus of this experiment was to ascertain if people could actually live on Mars and whether Mars was able to support and maintain life without outside interference. However, the experiment was a colossal flop and was considered so by both common folk and scientists. Speculation about the reasons behind the failure were rife with some scientists quizzing whether the biosphere could be successful on earth, considering earth is also a biosphere with a distinct planetary environment from that of Mars. While the experiment was considered a complete failure, people have gained vital knowledge from it, which has subsequently enhanced knowledge on how to create a better and superior biosphere in future. The biosphere 2 experiment serves as a benchmark for gauging what should or should not be done when establishing a biosphere. One of the most notable disparities that led to the experiment’s failure is the fact that the biosphere 2 building encompassed a vast array of solar glazing on its outer surface. Use of this outer surface material was vital to deter the chance of overheating as the experiment was conducted in an arid area (Oracle, Arizona). The structure, which was shaped like a greenhouse, stood on a 3.14 acre land and contained, among others, a mangrove wetland, tropical rain forest, fog desert, an ocean, complete with coral reef and savannah grassland (University of Arizona, 2010). The intensity of the biomes and ecosystems accommodated within such a small structure can also attest to its failure because all these systems require different conditions, which under minimal space could interfere with one another. A vital lesson is thus learnt; in order for an artificial biosphere to sustain life, earth-like conditions, notwithstanding, a much larger structure would have to be designed in order to accommodate different earth climates that support life. Biosphere 2 system’s malfunction was noted when the heat produced in the structure exceeded expected levels, forcing the engineers to modify the structure’s design to allow for large amounts of water to be used as a heat sink system (Alling, Nelson and Silverstone, 1993). Once water was used as a heat sink, it was pumped outside the building to enable heat to dispel before the water was pumped back inside. This typically meant that the self-sustaining, completely enclosed structure required interference from other sources in order to maintain adequate temperatures inside the structure. Without such life-saving interference from the engineers, the artificial bio system would have stopped working after a few days. The single mark of the ratio between sunlight and glass exemplifies biosphere 2’s inadequacy to sustain life on another planet. Scientists came to the realization that for an artificial biosphere to function effectively in Mars, the intensity and spectrum in terms of daylight entering the structure should be proportional to the daylight duration found in Mars. The structure’s surrounding would, hence need to be mimicked to Mars as best as possible. Climatic factors such as temperature, dust storms, super-strong winds and thin air would have to be factored in determining the most suitable external environment to create around the biosphere. These climatic factors would directly influence the biosphere’s effectiveness in supporting life in other planetary conditions. While this appears like an obvious solution to the problem of climatic conditions within biosphere 2, it is essential to note that the problem, in this case, was not solely on the experiment’s scientific design, but rather on the cultural mindset of the designers. Because humans are wired to judge their surroundings via their own cultures, it was rather difficult for designers to produce a structure that could support life in a place other than their home: earth. Yet another failure in biosphere 2 was the designers’ and scientists’ over attentiveness to what was to go on inside the biosphere, that they overlooked the aspect of what would happen on its exterior in the earth’s conditions. Scientists had to deal with the problem of oxygen depletion in the structure, which eventually adversely affected the crew, causing them to develop sleep apnoea and led to the death of many plants. The valves, pumps, tanks and other equipment that aided the circulation of oxygen and other gases within the structure were insufficient to ensure regular supply of oxygen in biosphere 2 and expulsion of harmful gases such as nitrogen (Allen and Blake, 1991). Scientists had failed to acknowledge that even on earth, beings and organisms are connected, so one factor has a compounded effect on many others. For instance, plants, animals, water sources and pollutants affect the environment’s quality, and quality of air in the environment affects life found in the environment. In an effort to salvage the oxygen situation and retain as much oxygen as they could have, the scientists stopped tilling, which is one of the most renowned source of green house gases, but the problem persisted. Eventually, the scientists discovered that most of the oxygen was held inside concrete within the structure. They also discovered that the soil had too much carbon, which was hazardous to both the crew and the environment’s health. Poynter, one of the scientists involved in establishing biosphere 2, also lived in the structure and asserts that the structure was indeed faulty and did not attain its purpose of establishing an imitation of earth’s biological ecosphere. However, the scientist attested that the possibility of using biosphere 2’s technology to enable people to go and survive in Mars on a long term basis was an indication that the initial project was a step in the right direction. The aspect of cultural changes that occurred among the crew can also be considered as one of biosphere 2’s failures. The crew’s cultural alienation from the world for two years made the crew unadaptive to the American culture when they left the structure. After spending two years in the new system, the crew had forgotten where food came from on the outside because while in biosphere 2, all the food they needed was grown in the structure. Poynter noted that after she left the biosphere, she immediately noted that people on the outside stunk of perfumes, deodorants and other commercial items. This is considered a failure because while the biosphere may be effective in sustaining life on other planets, when people return home, they will suffer cultural shock. One method of eliminating this is a new system would be to incorporate commercial products, which have been tested and certified as eco-friendly, into the biosphere (Poynter, 2006). Conclusion    While it is clear that the biosphere 2 project was an outright failure, it has insurmountable benefits. This is because it has afforded scientists, designers and the general public an opportunity to investigate what went wrong and realise what can be done in the future to facilitate the establishment of an effective biosphere, which will have the capacity to support and maintain life, as well as work autonomously. The problems experienced with regards to biosphere 2 are sufficient proof that failures, no matter how momentous they may appear, are viable tools for learning. By re-examining the failures of biosphere 2, scientists and designers realise that the probability of constructing a biosphere, which can sustain life on another planet and work autonomously, is feasibly high in the near future. References Allen, J. L. and Blake, A. (1991). Biosphere 2. NY: Viking Adult. Alling, A., Nelson, M. & Silverstone, S. (1993). Life under glass: The inside story of biosphere 2. New YorK: Synergetic Press. Erickson, M. (2005). Science, culture and society: Understanding science in the 21st century. Cambridge: Polity Press. Poynter, J. (2006). The Human Experiment: Two Years and Twenty Minutes inside Biosphere 2. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press. University of Arizona. (2010). Where Science Lives: Biosphere 2, Fast Facts: Stats on the Biosphere. Retrieved from http://www.b2science.org/b2/about-fact.htm Read More