This analysis is written, in part, to remedy a historical omission in the history of space medical research. Due to a fear of psychological issues, not free scientific enquiry, the behavioral sciences have, until very recently, been largely ignored by the U.S. Space Program. Thirty years of space flight experience in this country have yielded a gold mine of data and knowledge about the human body and its response to the space environment, but no objective data on the human psyche in that same environment has been produced -- and many scientists consider psychological issues to be a limiting factor in the human exploration of the universe.

I came to realize slowly and gradually that I was the "figurehead" for all psychological issues at NASA. When accused of not taking psychological issues seriously, NASA officials could point to me and maintain that I was clear proof of their commitment to such issues. But they never provided much support (either financial or moral) in my endeavors (to be fair, many other medical specialties were also seriously underfunded), and any psychological input that I might have had on any specific issue was generally ignored. It was clear that while it was convenient for them to be able to point to me as representing their commitment to understanding the psychological factors of space flight, I was never really expected to act like a psychiatrist.

I discovered that all the work of my predecessors had disappeared into a black hole. No records existed at NASA about their work. There was no record of psychological selection on the medical charts of astronauts. There were no archives that housed all the data collected; there was, in truth, a complete absence of behavioral sciences in any recognizable form in every part of the Space Program from selection and training to flight. When I questioned why this was so, I was accused of wanting to "destroy" the agency and described as "dangerous."

If the paranoia was due to fears that medical confidentiality would be violated, NASA had no real justification for its stance. All ethical psychiatrists and psychologists, including those doing research, have the strongest respect for individuals who participate in research. Researchers generally deal with this issue by one of two methods: Either they publish only group data, or they disguise the individual data in such a way as to ensure that it could never be connected to any particular individual.

To this day, for example, George Ruff will not discuss any individual astronaut data. The possibility of revealing anything to the press about the psychological state of an astronaut or of revealing anything that might be detrimental to a mission was, as far as Ruff was concerned, not a possibility.

The tragedy of it was, that all we ever saw in our flights was very positive. This recent talk about Carpenter using a lot of fuel for his flight and not having the "right stuff" was not done 25 years ago. At the time, that was within the require-

-xvii-