Mastering Mega Minds: Our Quest for Cognitive Development

Catalyst Volume 9

Humans are continuously pursuing perfection. This drive is what motivates scientific researchers and comic book authors to dream about the invention of bionic men. It seems inevitable that this quest has expanded to target humankind’s most prized possession: our brain. Cognitive enhancements are various technologies created in order to elevate human mental capacities. However, as scientists and entrepreneurs attempt to research and develop cognitive enhancements, society faces an ethical dilemma. Policy must help create a balance, maximizing the benefits of augmented mental processing while minimizing potential risks.

Cognitive enhancements are becoming increasingly prevalent and exist in numerous forms, from genetic engineering to brain stimulation devices to cognition-enhancing drugs. The vast differences between these categories make it difficult to generalize a single proposition that can effectively regulate enhancements as a whole. Overall, out of these types, prescription pills and stimulation devices currently have the largest potential for widespread usage.

Prescription pills exemplify the many benefits and drawbacks of using cognitive enhancements. ADHD medications like Ritalin and Adderall, which stimulate dopamine and norepinephrine activity in the brain, may be the most ubiquitous example of available cognitive enhancements. These drugs are especially abused among college students, who use these pills to stay awake for longer periods of time and enhance their attention while studying. In a collection of studies, 4.1 to 10.8% of American college students reported recreationally using a prescription stimulant in the past year, while the College Life Study determined that up to a quarter of undergraduates used stimulants at least once during college.^1,2 Students may not know or may disregard the fact that prolonged abuse has resulted in serious health concerns, including cardiopulmonary issues and addiction. When these medications are taken incorrectly, especially in conjunction with alcohol, users risk seizures and death.³

In addition to stimulants, there are a variety of other prescriptions that have been shown to improve cognitive function. Amphetamines affect neurotransmitters in the brain to increase consciousness and adjust sleep patterns. They achieve this by preventing dopamine reuptake and disrupting normal vesicular packaging, which also increases dopamine concentration in the synaptic cleft through reverse transport from the cytosol.⁴ These drugs are currently used by the armed forces to mitigate pilots’ fatigue in high-intensity situations. While usage of these drugs may help regulate pilots’ energy levels, this unfortunately means that pilots face heavy pressure to take amphetamines despite the possibility of addiction and the lack of approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.⁵

Besides prescription medications, various technological devices exist or are being created that affect cognition. For instance, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are devices currently marketed to enhance cognitive functioning through online websites and non-medical clinics, even though they have not yet received comprehensive clinical evaluations for this purpose.⁶ tDCS works by placing electrodes on the scalp to target specific brain areas. The machine sends a small direct current through electrodes to stimulate or inhibit neuronal activity. Similarly, TMS uses magnetic fields to alter neural activity. These methods have been shown to improve cognitive abilities including working memory, attention, language, and decision-making. Though these improvements are generally short-term, one University of Oxford study used tDCS to produce long-term improvements in mathematical abilities. Researchers taught subjects a new numerical system and then tested their ability to process and map the numbers into space. Subjects who received tDCS stimulation to the posterior parietal cortex displayed increased performance and consistency up to six to seven months after the treatment. This evidence indicates that tDCS can be used for the development of mathematical abilities as well as the treatment of degenerative neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s.⁷

Regulation of cognitive enhancements is a multifaceted issue for which the risks and benefits of widespread usage must be intensively examined. According to one perspective, enhancements possess the ability to maximize human efficiency. If an enhancement can enable the acceleration of technological development and enable individuals to solve issues that affect society, it could improve the quality of life for users and non-users alike. This is why bans on anabolic steroids are not directly comparable to those on cognitive enhancements. While both medications share the goal of helping humans accomplish tasks beyond their natural capabilities, cognitive enhancements could accelerate technological and societal advancement. This would be more beneficial to society than one individual’s enhanced physical prowess.

While discussing this, it should be noted that such enhancements will not instantaneously bestow the user with Einsteinian intellectual capabilities. In a recent meta-analysis of 48 academic studies with 1,409 participants, prescription stimulants were found to improve delayed working memory but only had modest effects on inhibitory control and short-term episodic memory. The report also discussed how in some situations, other methods, including getting adequate sleep and using cognitive techniques like mnemonics, are far more beneficial than taking drugs such as methylphenidate and amphetamines. Biomedical enhancements, however, have broad effects that are applicable to many situations, while traditional cognitive techniques that don’t directly change the biology behind neural processes are task-specific and only rarely produce significant improvements.⁸

However, if we allow enhancement use to grow unchecked, an extreme possibility is the creation of a dystopian society led by only those wealthy enough to afford cognitive enhancements. Speculation about other negative societal effects is endless; for example, widespread use of cognitive enhancements could create a cutthroat work environment with constant pressure to use prescription pills or cranial stimulation, despite side effects and cost, in order to compete in the job market.

The possibility of addiction to cognitive enhancements and issues of social stratification based on access or cost should not be disregarded. However, there are many proposed solutions to these issues. Possible governmental regulation proposed by neuroethics researchers includes ensuring that cognitive enhancements are not readily available and are only given to those who demonstrate knowledge of the risks and responsible use of such enhancements. Additionally, the creation of a national database, similar to the current system used to regulate addictive pain relievers, would also help control the amount of medication prescribed to individuals. This database could be an integrated system that allows doctors to view patients’ other prescriptions, ensuring that those who attempt to deceive s pharmacies to obtain medications for personal abuse or illegal resale could not easily abuse the system. Finally, to address the issue of potential social inequality, researchers at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute proposed a system in which the government could support broad development, competition, public understanding, a price ceiling, and even subsidized access for disadvantaged groups, leading to greater equalized access to cognitive enhancements.⁹

Advancements have made it possible to alter our minds using medical technology. Society requires balance to regulate these enhancements, an environment that will promote safe use while preventing abuse. The regulation of cognitive enhancement technologies should occur at several levels to be effective, from market approval to individual use. When creating these laws, research should not be limited because that could inhibit the discovery of possible cures to cognitive disorders. Instead, the neuroethics community should focus on safety and public usage regulations with the mission of preventing abuse and social stratification. Cognitive enhancements have the potential to affect the ways we learn, work, and live. However, specific regulations to address the risks and implications of this growing technology are required; otherwise the results could be devastating.

References

1. McCabe, S.E. et al. J. Psychoactive Drugs 2006, 38, 43-56.
2. Arria, A.M. et al. Subst. Abus. 2008, 29(4), 19-38.
3. Morton, W.A.; Stockton, G. J. Clin. Psychiatry 2000, 2(5), 159-164.
4. España, R.; Scammel, T. SLEEP 2011, 34(7), 845-858.
5. Rasmussen, N. Am. J. Public Health 2008, 98(6), 974-985.
6. Maslen, H. et al. J. of Law and Biosci. 2014, 1, 68-93.
7. Kadosh, R.C. et al. Curr. Biol. 2010, 20, 2016-2020.
8. Ilieva, I.P. et al. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2015, 1069-1089.
9. Bostrom, N.; Sandberg, A. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2009, 15, 311-341.

Microglia: Gardeners with Guns

Catalyst Volume 9

If you ask anyone about the brain, their response will almost certainly involve neurons. Although neurons have been the stars of neuroscience for the past hundred years, the brain would be entirely dysfunctional if not for the variety of brain support cells, collectively known as glia.¹

Glial cells serve a variety of purposes in the central nervous system. Oligodendrocytes produce an insulating fatty-material called myelin, and astrocytes maintain electrical impulses in the neuronal network.¹ Perhaps the least glorious of glial functions are carried out by the microglia, which are the neurological equivalent of your household gardeners: pruning unwanted synapses and tending to the new ones. However, microglia are the first line of immune defense in the brain. From the brain’s humble beginnings as a mass of undifferentiated neurons to its affliction with the weeds of old age, microglia are tasked with neuronal maintenance and repair, meaning that deviation from their “just-right” activity can cause a variety of neural diseases. Too little activity, and one can be autistic or schizophrenic; too much activity, and one may be afflicted with Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s. Given the large role these tiny cells play in brain protection, therapies that regulate microglial activation could be the key to curing a slew of neurological disorders.

Microglia respond to neural stress and injury through different mechanisms unique to their respective cell types: amoeboid phagocytic, resting ramified, and activated.² Amoeboid phagocytic glia act similarly to other scavengers and ingest large amounts of cellular debris in the developing brain during gestation.³ In postnatal development, these glia transform into resting ramified glia, which remain semi-dormant until their extended branches are activated by electrical signals from neurons or the presence of harmful substances.⁴ Activated microglia can secrete a variety of anti-inflammatory chemicals to prevent neurological problems, such as brains tumors and axonal injury.⁵ Microglia can also increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier, allowing bodily immune cells to assist with brain immune defense.² A negative feedback mechanism in microglia regulates their own immune response as well as that of other helper immune cells.

In most pathologies, microglia experience a change in their normal activity caused by environmental factors.² Gliomas, or tumors in the neural glial tissues, are diseases that microglia should be able to handle. However, cells from the two microglial subcategories that migrate toward gliomal cells, M1 and M2, react differently in the gliomal microenvironment. M1 microglia promote tumor degradation by activating other immune cells and phagocytizing gliomal tumor cells. However, M2 microglia promote tumor growth by inhibiting proinflammatory cytokine activity and slowing immune cell responses.⁶ Cytokines are small proteins that aid cell communication and regulate cellular immune response.⁷ Additionally, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) stimulates inactivated microglial migration into the glioma, carving a pathway for glioma to migrate to other areas of the brain. Some gliomal therapies have focused on inhibiting the activity of M2 microglia. Various drug treatments that inhibit M2 activity have been shown to decrease gliomal proliferation in vivo. However, the success of these therapies should be treated with caution: gliomal immunosuppression both inactivates multiple immune responses outside of microglia and has the plasticity to circumvent anti-tumor therapies.⁶

Reduced microglial activity is related to a variety of neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism that demonstrate decreased connectivity in the brain.⁸ Microglia are responsible for forming mature spines and eliminating immature connections in the brain during post-natal development. This seems counterintuitive; how can decreasing in microglial activity, which causes less synaptic pruning, somehow cause less connectivity in the brain? Reduced microglial activity is actually preventing the brain from eliminating immature spine connections, which leads to fewer mature connections. Failing to eliminate immature connections physically hinders other synapses from forming multiple connections. Techniques that would increase microglial activity include increasing CR3/C3 pathway activity, which triggers synaptic pruning via an unknown mechanism.⁹ Although microglial therapies might not entirely eliminate autism, which acts through a variety of known and unknown neurological mechanisms, there is potential for ameliorating some symptoms.

Microglia often experience increased sensitivity in the aging brain caused by an increased expression of activation markers.¹⁰ This leads to several inflammatory neurological illnesses, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Microglia are once again found to play contradicting roles in the progression of Alzheimer’s; their activity is critical in producing neuroprotective anti-inflammatory cytokines, removing cell debris, and degrading amyloid-β protein, the main component of amyloid plaques that cause neurofibrillary tangles.¹⁰ Alternatively, activating microglia runs the risk of hyper-reactivity, which can cause extreme detriment to the central nervous system. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to decrease the amount of activated microglia by 33% in non-AD patients. Treatment on microglial cultures increased amyloid-β phagocytosis and decreased inflammatory cytokine secretion. However, this treatment did not alter the microglial inflammatory activity in AD patients. The ideal microglial therapy for neuroinflammatory illnesses would result in the expression of only positive microglial activity, such as amyloid-β degradation, and the elimination of negative activity, such as pro-inflammatory secretion. One mechanism that increases pro-inflammatory secretion is amyloid-β binding to formyl peptide receptor (FPR) on microglia. Protein Annexin A1 (ANXA1) binding to FPR has been seen to inhibit interactions between amyloid-β and FPR, which decreases pro-inflammatory secretion.

Central nervous system pathology researchers often speculate as to how certain bacteria and viruses are able to enter the brain and consider mechanisms such as increase in blood-brain barrier permeability and chemical exchange through cerebrospinal fluid. However, the discovery of nervous system lymphatic vessels may put much of this speculation to rest and open up an entirely new venue of neuroimmunological research.¹¹ The interaction between microglial immune function and these lymphatic vessels could introduce treatments that recruit microglia to sites where bacterial and viral infections are introduced into the brain. Alternatively, therapies that increase bodily immune cell and microglial interactions by increasing the presence of bodily immune cells in the brain could boost the neural immune defense. Other approaches could involve introducing drugs that increase or decrease microglial-activity into more accessible lymphatic vessels elsewhere in the body for proactive treatment of neonatal brain diseases. Although we have made some steps towards curing brain diseases that involve microglial activity, coordinating these treatments with others that increase neural immune defenses has the potential to create effective treatment for those afflicted by devastating and currently incurable neurological diseases.

References

1. Hughes, V. Nature 2012, 485, 570-572.
2. Yang, I.; Han, S.; Kaur, G.; Crane, C.; Parsa, A. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2010, 17, 6-10.
3. Ferrer, I.; Bernet, E.; Soriano, E.; Del Rio, T.; Fonseca, M. Neuroscience 1990, 39, 451-458.
4. Christensen, R.; Ha, B.; Sun, F.; Bresnahan, J.; Beattie, M. J. Neurosci. Res. 2006, 84, 170-181.
5. Babcock, A.; Kuziel, W.; Rivest, S.; Owens, T. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 2003, 23, 7922-7930.
6. Wei, J.; Gabrusiewicz, K.; Heimberger, A. Clinical and Developmental Immunology 2013, 2013, 1-12.
7. Zhang, J.; An, J. International Anesthesiology Clinics 2007, 45, 27-37.
8. Zhan, Y.; Paolicelli, R.; Sforazzini, F.; Weinhard, L.; Bolasco, G.; Pagani, F.; Vyssotski, A.; Bifone, A.; Gozzi, A.; Ragozzino, D.; Gross, C. Nature Neuroscience 2014, 17, 400-406.
9. Schafer, D.; Lehrman, E.; Kautzman, A.; Koyama, R.; Mardinly, A.; Yamasaki, R.; Ransohoff, R.; Greenberg, M.; Barres, B.; Stevens, B. Neuron 2012, 74, 691-705.
10. Solito, E.; Sastre, M. Frontiers in Pharmacology 2012, 3.
11. Louveau, A.; Smirnov, I.; Keyes, T.; Eccles, J.; Rouhani, S.; Peske, J.; Derecki, N.; Castle, D.; Mandell, J.; Lee, K.; Harris, T.; Kipnis, J. Nature 2015, 523, 337-341.

Megafires

Catalyst Volume 9

In 2015, American forests were ravaged by larger and more destructive fires than ever before. One of the most devastating wildfires occurred in Washington State and burned over 250,000 acres of forest at a rate of 3.8 acres per second.¹ These unprecedented grand burns of over 100,000 acres have been justifiably coined by researchers as “Megafires.”² Unfortunately, megafires are becoming an increasingly common feature of the American West.

Although forest fires are a natural and essential part of a forest’s life cycle, scientific records show a worrisome trend. Data from the National Climate Center in Asheville, North Carolina indicate that recent fires burn twice the forest acreage as wildfires 40 years ago.³ In contrast to replenishing wildfires that promote forest growth, megafires scorch the landscape, disabling forest regeneration and leaving wastelands in their wake.² In other words, they burn forests so completely that trees are unable to regrow.⁴ The increased incidence of megafires accordingly threatens to cause environmental change, particularly in the Western United States.⁵ Once-rich forests are now in danger of depletion and extinction as they give way to grasslands and shrubs. Even the hardy Ponderosa Pine, previously thought to be completely flameproof, is succumbing to megafires.⁵

What is the future of our forests, and what can we, as custodians of our natural lands, do to shape this future? Can we prevent megafires? Understanding the contributing causes of megafires is essential in devising a solution to prevent them. Current thinking by various ecologists identifies three primary causative factors, both behavioral and environmental: new firefighting strategies, the rise of invasive species, and climate change.¹

Government policies that promote aggressive control of forest fires are deceptive in their benefits. Fire-fighters have become incredibly efficient at locating and extinguishing wildfires before they become too destructive. However, certain tree species that have flame- and temperature-resistant properties, such as the Pine Barrens, Lodgepole Pine, and Eucalyptus, require periodic fires in order to reproduce.⁶ When facing wildfires these types of trees survive, whereas other plant species perish. Since flame-resistant tree species are often native flora to forest ecosystems, the selective survival of these trees maintains the forest’s composition over time and prevents shrubs and grasslands from overrunning the ecosystem. Flame-resistant trees accomplish their phoenix-like regeneration and self-sustainability by releasing their seedlings during a wildfire. In addition, forest fires destroy flora that would impede the growth of new seedlings through competition for space and light. This regenerative effect of forest fires has even resulted in the return of certain endangered tree species.⁴ One example, the Jack Pine, maintains its seedlings in cones that melt in the presence of fire. A policy to extinguish fires prematurely can inhibit seed release, threatening Jack Pine forests and others like it.⁶ To date, aggressive government policies toward forest fire-fighting have led to significant changes in forest composition accompanied by buildup of tinder and debris on the forest floor. This accumulated undergrowth now fuels megafires that burn with unparalleled intensity and speed. In contrast, forest management policies that revert to the practice of allowing small, controlled fires to clear away debris would maintain the forest’s long-term survival.

Invasive, flame-susceptible species provide the perfect fuel for megafires. During their westward expansion in the 1880s, settlers were not the only ones to achieve Manifest Destiny. Several species of grass also made the journey. The most common of these species was the Cheatgrass, a grass native to Europe, southwestern Asia, and northern Africa.⁷ Cheatgrass was inadvertently brought to the Americas on cargo ships in the 1800s and has been a significant environmental problem ever since. The short life cycle and prolific seed production of Cheatgrass causes it to dry out by mid-June, meaning that it serves as kindling for fires during the summer. Cheatgrass increases the size and severity of fires since it burns twice as much as the endogenous vegetation.⁷ Since the native vegetation is slowly being choked out by Cheatgrass, the landscape of the American West is transitioning into a lawn of this invasive species, poised to erupt into an inferno.

Global warming, one of the environmental causes of megafires, is perhaps an even more critical and challenging threat than invasive species. In 2015, forest fires ravaged more than 9 million acres of the Western mainland United States and Alaska.³ Studies of global warming demonstrate that every degree Celsius of atmospheric warming is accompanied by a four-fold increase in the area of forest destruction. Thus, the increase in global temperature is directly associated with the prevalence of megafires.⁸ Since the 1900s, the average temperature of the planet has increased by 0.6 degrees Celsius, primarily in the twenty-first century.⁹ Typically, severe fires burn less often at higher altitudes, due to cooler temperature and greater moisture levels, but as global temperatures increase, these areas become drier and more prone to forest fires. This warming of the climate contributes to massive burns that are fueled by centuries of forest debris and undergrowth.⁹ Climate change also contributes to a lack of precipitation, which further contributes to the expansion and intensity of forest fires. Wildfires themselves also contribute to climate change; as they continue to burn they emit greenhouse gases, which can contribute to accelerating global warming.⁹

Ultimately, due to poor policy practice, a destructive cycle is forming that serves as a catalyst to megafires. Finding long-term solutions that will prevent the occurrence of megafires will require policy adjustments at the regional, national, and international levels.⁶ Currently policies are changing, endorsing smaller burns to limit build up for megafire fuel. As more data is being introduced about global warming, efforts are being made to find more renewable forms of energy such as solar and wind.⁹ Ideally, this shift in resources will limit the increase in global temperatures and reduce the risk of megafires. Lastly research is being done to develop grasses that can out compete the problematic Cheatgrass.⁷ If we can meet these challenges, then megafires may finally be extinguished.

References

1.  Why we have such large wildfires this summer. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/why-we-have-such-damaging-wildfires-this-summer/ (accessed Oct. 9, 2015).
2.  National Geographic: How Megafires Are Remaking American Forests. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150809-wildfires-forest-fires-climate-change-science/ (accessed Oct. 11, 2015)
3. Climate Central: The Age of Western Wildfires. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-the-age-of-western-wildfires-14873 (accessed Oct. 9, 2015)
4. Deadly forest fire leads to resurrection of endangered tree. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/deadly-forest-fire-leads-to-resurrection-of-endangered-tree/ (accessed Oct. 9, 2015)
5. Rasker, thesolutionsjournal 2015, 55-62.
6. NPR: Why Forest-Killing Megafires Are The New Normal. http://www.npr.org/2012/08/23/159373770/the-new-normal-for-wildfires-forest-killing-megablazes (accessed Oct. 11, 2015)
7. Keeley, International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2007, 16, 96–106
8. Stephens, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2014, 12, 115-122.
9. Climate Central: Study Ties Warming Temps to Uptick in Huge Wildfires. http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-huge-wildfire-outbreaks-19521 (accessed Oct. 21, 2015)

Mars Fever

Catalyst Volume 9

The Greeks called it the star of Ares. For the Egyptians, it was the Horus of the Horizon. Across many Asian cultures, it was called the Fire Star. Mars has been surrounded by mystery from the time of ancient civilizations to the recent discovery of water on the planet’s surface.¹ But why have humans around the world and throughout history been so obsessed with the tiny red planet?

Human fascination with Mars began in the late 19th century, when Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli first observed canali, or lines, on the planet’s surface. Yet canali was mistakenly translated as “canals” instead of “lines.”² This led many to believe that some sort of intelligent life existed on Mars and these canals were engineered for their survival. While these lines were later found to be optical illusions, the canali revolutionized the way people viewed Mars. For perhaps the first time in history, it seemed that humans might not be alone in the universe. Schiaparelli had unintentionally sparked what became known as “Mars fever,” and indirectly influenced our desire to study, travel to, and even colonize Mars for more than 100 years. In Cosmos, Carl Sagan memorably described this odd fascination, “Mars has become a kind of mythic arena onto which we have projected our Earthly hopes and fears.”

He was right.

After the canali misunderstanding, people began to believe that not only was there life on Mars, but intelligent life. The Mars craze escalated with the rise of science fiction, especially the publication of H.G. Wells’s classic Martian takeover novel War of the Worlds.^2,3 In 1938, the novel was adapted for a radio broadcast narrated by actor Orson Welles. The broadcast incited mass terror, as millions of listeners mistook the fictional broadcast for news of an impending alien Armageddon. Surprisingly, this is just one of the many instances where random events have been mistaken for extraterrestrial interaction. The public image of Mars quickly evolved to reflect a mystical red landscape inhabited by intelligent, antagonistic, green creatures. Mars fever was becoming contagious.

As decades passed, it became increasingly clear that Mars contained no tiny green men and that there were no flying saucers coming to colonize the Earth. The Mariner missions found no evidence of life on Mars, and as a result, Mars fever took on a new form: without the threat of intelligent, alien life forms, who was to stop us from colonizing the Red Planet? After all, perhaps the destruction of Earth wouldn’t be caused by invaders, but by earthlings themselves. Many contemporary science fiction writers focus on this idea of a second Earth in their stories. Award-winning novelist Michael Swanwick says, "We all are running out of a lot of different minerals, some of which our civilization depends on … There is a science-fiction idea for you."⁴ With natural resources dwindling and pollution on the rise, Earth might need a replacement.⁵ Mars’ relative similarity and proximity to Earth make it a strong candidate.

Rocket scientist Werner Von Braun even wrote The Mars Project, a book outlining a Martian colonization fleet that would be assembled in earth orbit.⁶ It was a proposition of massive proportions, calling for $500 million in rocket fuel alone and human explorers rather than rovers such as NASA’s Opportunity and Curiosity.⁶ However, these colonization efforts are not simply fictional. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and creator of the privately funded space agency SpaceX, has put intense effort into interplanetary travel, particularly in the case of Mars, but his methods remain abstract.⁷ Mars One has a similar goal: establishing a Martian colony. While not an aerospace company, Mars One is a logistical center for carrying out such a mission. They focus primarily on funding and organization, leaving systems construction up to more established aerospace companies.⁸ While both SpaceX and Mars One are dedicated to the cause of Martian colonization, it is evident that neither company will be able to accomplish such a mission any time soon.

The possible mechanisms for colonizing Mars are endless, ranging from pioneering the landscape with 3D printable habitats to harvesting remnants of water from the Martian soil. But the challenges arguably outweigh current technologies. In order to survive, humans would need space suits that could protect against extreme temperature differentials.⁵ Once on the surface, astronauts would need to establish food sources that were both sustainable and suitable for long term missions.⁹ Scientists would need to consider accommodations for the mental health of astronauts spending more time in space than any other human in history. Beyond these basic necessities, factors like harmful cosmic rays and the sheer cost of such a mission must also be considered.¹⁰

The highly improbable nature of Mars exploration and colonization only seems to add fuel to the fire of humanity’s obsession. In spite of the challenges associated with colonization, Mars fever persists. Though Mars is 225 million kilometers away from Earth, it has piqued human curiosity throughout civilizations. Schiaparelli and his contemporaries could only dream of the possibilities that dwelled in Mars’s “canali.” However, exploration of Mars is no longer the stuff of science-fiction. This is a new era of making the impossible possible, from Neil Armstrong’s “giant leap for mankind” to the establishment of the International Space Station. We are closer to Mars than ever before, and in the coming years we might just unveil the mystery behind the Red Planet.

References

1. Mars Shows Signs of Having Flowing Water, Possible Niches for Life, NASA Says, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/science/space/mars-life-liquid-water.html?_r=1, (accessed September 28, 2015)
2. A Short History of Martian Canals and Mars Fever, http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a17529/a-short-history-of-martian-canals-and-mars-fever/, (accessed September 28, 2015)
3. The Myth of the War of the Worlds Panic, http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/history/2013/10/orson_welles_war_of_the_worlds_panic_myth_the_infamous_radio_broadcast_did.html, (accessed October 10, 2015)
4. Why Colonize Mars? Sci-Fi Authors Weigh In., http://www.space.com/29414-mars-colony-science-fiction-authors.html (accessed Jan 30, 2016)
5. Here’s why humans are so obsessed with colonizing Mars, http://qz.com/379666/heres-why-humans-are-so-obsessed-with-colonizing-mars/, (accessed Oct 10, 2015)
6. Humans to Mars, http://history.nasa.gov/monograph21.pdf, (accessed Oct 10, 2015)
7. SpaceX's Elon Musk to Reveal Mars Colonization Ideas This Year, http://www.space.com/28215-elon-musk-spacex-mars-colony-idea.html, (accessed October 10, 2015)
8. About Mars One, http://www.mars-one.com/about-mars-one (accessed Jan 30, 2016)
9. Talking to the Martians, http://www.popsci.com/martians, (accessed September 28, 2015)
10. Will We Ever Colonize Mars?, http://www.space.com/30679-will-humans-ever-colonize-mars.html (accessed Jan 30, 2016)