The approach of SSWG to its challenge may not quickly appear in environmental health sciences textbooks, in desk references of environmental health practitioners, in public health course lectures, or in environmental case studies.
In a report on the SSWG (Machlis & McNutt 2010; U.S.
Further elaboration of the SSWG's work is in the references below.
SSWG cites four "fundamental aspects" of the NASA program, fitting all or in part under R&A, which it says need "substantial improvement" over time: development of new instruments, inexpensive opportunities to fly them, increased graduate education programs and increased recognition of the role of R&A in general (as a separate matter from the spectacular space missions themselves).
In SSWG's view, says Davidsen, "the NASA space program ...
"Much university laboratory equipment for space research," the SSWG report says flatly, "is out of date." In fact, says Davidsen, "much of our current research is being carried out, and the next generation of students being trained, with equiment from a past generation." In 1983, says Israel, a NASA university-relations study group urged the addition of $11 million a year to space science R&A funds expressly for equipment.
"Universities train the future generations of scientists and engineers," notes the report, and here the SSWG actually gives NASA a passing mark.