Recommendation: 

NASA RESPONSE 

NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

Reporting Line of the Planetary Protection Office 

2013-03-03 (SC-03) 

The Council recommends that the Planetary Protection Office (PPO) be moved so as to be out 

of any Mission Directorate and located with a reporting line that assures the PPO's 

independence and freedom from conflict of interest. 

Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation: 

The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Lessons-Learned Report specifically recommended 

reconsideration of"the current organizational arrangement for the PPO to ensure that 

Planetary Protection is fully independent of any operational division. In addition the P PO role 

should be re-examined in light of P PO's expanding role, to include human exploration and 

cross-mission trades for sample return. " While Planetary Protection is strongly rooted in 

science, the Planetary Protection function entails broader responsibilities, including 

responsibilities of a regulatory nature and involving compliance with international treaties and 

agreements to which NASA is a party. Furthermore, the Space Studies Board, long anticipating 

the MSL Lessons-Learned Report, has previously advised NASA that it must ensure the 

integrity and independence of the Planetary Protection Office and advisory bodies as separate 

from the science side of the Agency [National Research Council (NRC) 1992, 1997, 2002]. 

The definition and implementation of Planetary Protection, while requiring continuation of its 

essential roots in science, is also of significance to the technical engineering aspects of 

missions. A primary reporting relationship between the PPO and the Offices of the Chief 

Scientist and Chief Engineer, for example, could provide an effective independent structure for 

working with the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and the mission projects to ensure 

balance, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness in the application of Planetary Protection 

measures. Furthermore, while the primary responsibility for defining standards for lifedetecting experiments would still reside with science investigators and SMD, placing the PPO 

reporting line outside of SMD would provide an effective independent framework for 

evaluating the implications of the results of life-detecting experiments, for Planetary Protection 

as applied to subsequent missions. 

• NRC 1992, Biological Contamination of Mars: Issues and Recommendations, National 

Academy Press 

• NRC 1997, Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations, National Academy 

Press 

• NRC 2002, Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples, National Academy Press 

Enclosure 
Consequences of No Action on the Proposed Recommendation: 

The conflicts of interest - real and perceived - between Planetary Protection and the science 

and exploration programs, and the lack of independence, can dilute the force and credibility of 

NASA's Planetary Protection implementation, thus reducing the effectiveness and cost 

effectiveness with which Planetary Protection is incorporated into missions, and potentially 

undermining public confidence. 

NASA Response: 

2 

NASA concurs in part. NASA's planetary protection activities are conducted in the context of 

well-elaborated international principles and policies established through the Committee on 

Space Research (COSPAR) and the National Academy of Sciences. At present, NASA's 

scientific and technical expertise applicable to planetary protection functions resides in SMD 

and situating these functions in this office optimizes access to these resources. NASA is in the 

early stages of planning for future human missions to Mars, in cooperation with the Human 

Exploration and Operations Directorate, and will revisit this rationale and the organizational 

location of the planetary protection functions within the Agency as this effort progresses.