4/10/2026
NASA’s 2026 Artemis II mission carried a four-person crew beyond Earth orbit for the first time since 1972, conducting a flyby of the Moon. For the first time, the mission also carried organ chips to study the shared effects of deep-space radiation and microgravity. As part of the AVATAR investigation, these organ chips—grown from the astronauts’ own cells—fly alongside the crew during their 10-day journey around the Moon. This ambitious experiment represents a new frontier in space research, yet it also raises ethical questions related to human experimentation beyond Earth.
The organ-on-a-chip experiment uses USB-sized organ chips to predict individuals’ responses to various stressors, such as radiation or medical treatments. These organ chips use cells from the crew’s preflight blood donations to create miniature “avatars” of their bone marrow. They mimic tissues such as the brain, heart, and liver and experience identical radiation exposure and gravitational conditions during the Artemis II mission. “It’s the first time this has been done, and it’s all being done outside of low Earth orbit,” said biomedical scientist David Chou, a principal investigator for organ-on-a-chip experiments at biotechnology company Emulate.
Current space radiation guidelines only cover missions in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). These guidelines still need to define the acceptable levels of risk for space exploration beyond LEO before sending manned missions to deep space, such as Mars. Beyond LEO, astronauts may face increased space radiation, causing risks such as cancer, central nervous system effects, and degenerative diseases. Identifying how radiation correlates with such risks is essential for balancing scientific progress with crew safety.
While human research on Earth has well-established regulations, astronauts have different standards, as they serve as both scientists and volunteer research subjects. This ambiguity raises ethical questions about whether astronaut research is professional practice or human experimentation, challenging the validity of informed consent and the extent to which consent is voluntary. The U.S. Code of Regulations for informed consent requires a “description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject“; in the case of space travel, where many or most risks are unknown, it is unclear whether space exploration missions can meet this requirement.
The crew selection process for space experiments also raises ethical concerns about distributive justice. Space agencies might begin screening astronaut candidates as they understand genetic and biological factors that influence radiation sensitivity. They would select astronauts who are less likely to develop diseases after exposure to space radiation. The good news is that some existing regulations prevent this scenario.
While federally funded human space research is well-regulated, there is a lack of similar guidelines for private/commercial spaceflight. For example, a 2004 congressional moratorium prevents the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from issuing safety regulations for commercial spacecraft to limit regulatory burdens on the emerging industry. There are also minimal regulations regarding the selection and training of non-governmental astronauts, as well as the medical research they conduct. Thus, government astronauts and commercial space travelers face different levels of protection and oversight, creating a dangerous double standard that undermines participant protection and the space exploration industry’s long-term credibility.
Depending on the results of this study, some researchers argue that deep-space radiation may require radical biomedical interventions for astronauts. However, the ability to modify human DNA directly might cause unintended consequences, including altering traits that could affect not only the individual astronaut but also their descendants. Is it ethical to make permanent changes to the astronauts’ genes without fully understanding the long-term implications? If this is the case, do astronauts really get the dignity they deserve, or are they just treated as test subjects?
While scientifically significant, the Artemis II mission raises questions about deep-space human research and highlights the limitations of current regulations. We need to ensure that space exploration never compromises the dignity and rights of those leading the way.