NASA's Human Research Program (HRP) will fund three proposals to help investigate questions about behavioral health and performance on future deep space exploration missions. Research like this may help astronauts as they venture farther into the solar system than ever before to explore an asteroid and, eventually, Mars.

The selected proposals are from three institutions in two states and will receive a total of about $3.2 million during a three-year period. The three projects were selected from 11 proposals received in response to the research announcement "Human Exploration Research Opportunities - Behavioral Health and Performance." Science and technology experts from academia and government reviewed the proposals.

Two proposals will investigate neurobehavioral conditions and standardized behavioral measures relevant to exploration class missions. One proposal will evaluate the neurobehavioral effects of a dynamic lighting system on the International Space Station.

HRP research provides knowledge and technologies to reducecrew health and performance risksduring space exploration. It also develops potential countermeasures for problems experienced during space travel.Mission planners and system developers can use these potential countermeasures to monitor and mitigate the risks to crew health and performance.

While the programs research goals are to ensure astronauts living off the Earth safely complete their challenging space missions and preserve their long-term health, these same research studies can also lead to advancements in human health understanding and treatments for patients on Earth.

For a complete list of the selected principal investigators, organizations and proposals, visit:

http://go.nasa.gov/1rX1Qzr

For information about NASA's Human Research Program, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/humanresearch

See original here:
NASA Selects Three Proposals to Support Behavioral Health and Performance on Deep Space Missions

If it appears that your favorite candidate has been flooding your e-mail box with tales of woe lately, here's one reason why: New research shows that the Internet loves an underdog candidate.

Apair of behavioral scientists, Todd Rogers of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Don A. Moore of the University of California at Berkeley, examined whether campaign donors are more likelyto open theirwalletsfora candidate who's projected to win or one who's projected to lose.

Working with theonline fundraising and digital marketing firm Anne Lewis Strategies, the researcherstracked the outcomes of e-mails sent ontwodays in June to the e-mail list of the Democratic Governors Association. The e-mails were aimed at fundraising around the gubernatorial race pittingFlorida Democrat Charlie Crist againstRepublican Rick Scott. The e-mails were identicalexcept for the first line: One said: "We've fallen behind Rick Scott in the latest polls," while the other said: "Rick Scott is LOSING in three straight polls."

Luckily for science, the polling on the race has been tight enough to justify either interpretation of the state of the contest.

The down-by-a-hair e-mails turned out to be the big winner, with people far more likely to support a candidate who is barely losing than one just barely winning. The underdog e-mails raised 60 percent more money than those that suggested that the race was still close but that the preferred candidate had pulled ahead, according to the study released last week, "The Motivating Power of Under-Confidence."

"This constant testing of widely varying messages could generate the pattern we observe: messages highlighting that the candidate is barely losing may tend to dominate other messages," the study says.

This makes some intuitive sense. Voters have little interest in spending money to ensure victory. But there are wrinkles. For supporters, the idea that your candidate is losing is appealing. But the pitch doesn't work on uncommitted voters.

Rogers and Moore also found that would-be voters were more likely to support a fictional candidate when they were first presented with positive statements about their candidacy. The researchers attribute that to the behavioral practice of "herding," in whichwe humans are likely to throw our lots in with those who others seem to believe are likely to succeed.

"Talking to uncommitted voters," says Lewis, "is like going on a first date. You want them to think you're a winner. But after you've been married for 20 years, you can be a little more like, 'Yikes, I need help.'"

That helps explain one dichotomy of politics. On television, where candidates are appealing to a general audience, they're likely to talk about the strength of their campaign. But their online mailing lists tend to be made up of supporters -- one reason that candidates often appear far more sad sack in our e-mail inboxes than on our TV sets.

See the original post here:
The science behind why our inboxes are so full of political losers