BIOSPHERE 2 FUNCTIONED AS A SEPARATE LIVING WORLD
What is astonishing, given the level of unknowns, is just how well Biosphere 2 did function and how successfully the ecological systems and technosphere meshed. There were surprises: the oxygen decline that no one predicted, or the fog desert that changed to more chaparral dominance; but perhaps the greatest surprise was how ecological zones in every biome remained largely intact. The coral reef, our greatest biomic challenge, which struggled with bleaching, coral disease, algae overgrowth, and lowered pH, surpassed all expectations. Only one hard coral species out of thirty-four was lost and 86% were considered to be in fair to excellent health at the end of the two-year experiment. The system as a whole functioned as a natural coral reef. The mangroves thrived, more than doubling in height, though understory species declined. The rainforest grew up rapidly and fulfilled the planned ecological succession: the fast-growing first canopy trees and ginger belt on all sides protected the more light-sensitive, mature rainforest species from the harsh Arizona sunlight. The ecological self-organization of these biomes provides lessons for ecological restoration of damaged ecosystems in the Caribbean, Amazon, Everglades and elsewhere around the world.
When we left, our world was lush, vibrant and remarkably diverse. The feared algal soup, mass extinctions, or merging of biomes into one weed-dominated ecosystem never even remotely occurred. When we stepped out of Biosphere 2 and experienced such contrasting air, smells, sounds and the sight of the distant horizon in the Arizona Sonoran desert, we knew that the project had succeeded. We had indeed been living in a very different world and we palpably experienced the differences between the two with our first breaths of Earth air.
THE HUMAN DRAMA: LIVING WITH JUST SEVEN OTHER PEOPLE
Our greatest challenge was ourselves, humans, both within the experiment as well as outside. The 1991 to 1993 Biosphere 2 closure was a human isolation experiment that had never been done before. Boldly, the crew signed up for the two-year journey knowing that this would be a formidable feat of endurance and without a doubt we would face challenges, both personally and collectively, that were unpredictable. We had worked together prior to closure for many years, we knew each other well, but we also knew that the isolation and dramatic change in our day-today living would challenge us in ways we had never experienced before.
The experience of the small teams that spend winters in Antarctica, expedition teams, submarine crews as well as astronauts and cosmonauts confirmed that us-them divisions are common in exploration. Once a group of space station cosmonauts, annoyed at Mission Control, cut off radio contact for 24 hours; no questions were asked when they resumed talking to the people on the ground. Another cosmonaut described the extremely tight living conditions of the spacecraft he shared with two other people and dryly noted: “a perfect recipe for homicide!” Fortunately for us, our isolation experiment included wilderness areas, where we could drop out of sight of visitors and other crew alike, as well as spacious private bedrooms and public spaces.
Dr. Oleg Gazenko, Director of the Institute of BioMedical Problems in Moscow and confidant of generations of cosmonauts, was part of the Biosphere 2 Scientific Advisory Committee. He was most interested in the human dimension of Biosphere 2 and spoke with us during and after the experiment. He observed us closely and concluded that the biospherians had done far better than the cosmonauts in adjusting to our new environment, as evidenced by our feeling of freedom and ease with living inside. While some of us quickly adapted physically, feeling in sync with the rhythms of Biosphere 2, by the spring of the second year all eight of us experienced the shift as a team. We had become the Biosphere 2 team and our actions were relaxed, empowered, and coherent.
Dr. Gazenko also underscored the importance of the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki, which requires that human research subjects be repeatedly given the right to leave an experiment at any time. While not a legally binding agreement, but an ethical one, it formed a fundamental experimental guideline for both Mission Control and all eight biospherians. Periodically, we came together to review our commitments individually and collectively. We all agreed that it was by our own choice that we took part in the Biosphere 2 experiment, but we retained the right to leave at any time. This also encouraged us to accept responsibility for difficult times since we all agreed to participate and work together.
Later, during the transition period after our closure was over, most of the bio-spherians reported that for weeks they felt more comfortable working inside the facility than outside. Psychological tests taken while we were still inside, in addition to private interviews held by the head of University of Arizona Medical School’s psychiatry department, showed we were psychologically healthy, with nearly identical profiles amongst both men and women biospherians that closely matched those of other explorers, such as astronauts. One psychologist even told us if he was lost in the Amazon and needed help getting out safely, the eight of us would be his first choice!
Frictions and differences are inherent in any group; it’s human nature. Just imagine being closed in for two years with only seven other members of your family, friends, or fellow co-workers. How well would you get along? The struggle over the future of Biosphere 2 that took place outside during the two years affected us inside, and probably added some fuel to the fire. Additionally, with the world’s attention on us, just like other people in isolated, confined environments, there’s a tendency to exaggerate these difficulties. But there were also plenty of fun and lighter periods, as well as tense periods throughout our two years. Remarkably, through thick and thin, we continued to work and play together. Any feast, morning with our few but precious coffee beans, or other celebration was too valuable to ruin with squabbles. Biosphere 2 was our shared love and passion and all of the biospherians were totally dedicated to making our closure experiment a success and as scientifically fruitful as possible. Our world was also our lifeboat, so subconscious sabotage was unthinkable and never happened. We hope that also becomes a lesson for our situation now as an emerging global community faces very serious climate and resource challenges. It is imperative that people everywhere come to realize that Earth’s biosphere is literally our shared home.
BIOSPHERE 2 NOW
When Space Biosphere Ventures changed hands in 1994 and the facility was given to Columbia University, it was altered from operating as a biospheric laboratory to one where the biomes were separated to create a greenhouse with controlled environments. The regenerative farm was dismantled and the space was used to study trees in different CO2 environments. A crew no longer lived inside, the biospherian apartments were turned into offices and people and technicians entered to maintain the facility or collect data. The decline in the health and vitality of Biosphere 2 under this conventional scientific management illustrates that it takes both a detailed (reductionist) and a total system (holistic) approach to study a biosphere. The value of having live-in crews that could experience how each of our lives is dependent upon our biosphere was lost.
Research conducted when Biosphere 2 operated as a closed ecological system, from 1991-1994, produced a wealth of scientific data and publications. Unfortunately, much of the massive volumes of data collected from those first experiments are not available. Subsequent managers of the facility continued researching the ecosystems that were built, producing striking findings. Since the University of Arizona began managing the facility in 2007, they have carried forward the purposes of the project to serve as a center for research and education, in order to advance our understanding of the natural and man-made environment and catalyze interdisciplinary thinking and understanding about Earth and its future. Our vision was that Biosphere 2 would be the first of many biospheric laboratories that would be used for comparison with a range of different mini-biospheres to obtain critical knowledge about how life operates on planet Earth. It was named “2” to highlight that Biosphere 1 is our Earth’s biosphere, the one we all share. As the first prototype, we expected it would give rise to Biospheres 3, 4, 5 . . . all of which would be built for biospheric research and development of new technologies to restore our environment and generate environmentally-friendly economic technologies, such as new ways of cleaning our air, water, and preventing pollution. To put that program in monetary perspective: Biosphere 2’s estimated cost