Sample Informed Consent Form List Format University Of: Fill & Download for Free

Chemical LobotomiesWell, something first needs to be made clear: lobotomies are not a completely useless tool. Just because they are most often misused and mismanaged does not mean their very nature makes them inappropriate for all purposes, patients, and situations. Any kind of universality like that is not something any of us could really judge, as it depends both on clinical data and on subjective information and personal value systems and experiences.To call a drug a chemical lobotomy, as antipsychotics were heralded when first introduced and marketed, is not to say that the drug should never be used. It is rather offering a more honest representation of their function which contrasts the contemporary marketing pitches and the self-serving soft-pedaling that many doctors, facilities, and organizations offer to prospective and current patients. In all the euphemisms and omissions and illegal tactics, we have lost sight of the urgency involved in such serious drugs, and patients are the ones who suffer the most for this lack of responsible, evidence-based regard.The Issue of ChoiceIt is true to say that I am not a particular fan of antipsychotics, for a variety of reasons, but I think the decision to use or not use drugs—any drugs—should come down to the individual. Thus, we should be supporting informed consent, acknowledgement and accessibility of options, and proper risk-management for whatever options someone decides to move forward with. It is failings in these more particular departments that has contributed significantly to preventable harms. Like in the use of all other tools, we need to address the human components.Knowing a drug is dangerous does not tell us everything we need to consider, and how we respond to that danger is central to quality of care and how constructively someone can interact with prescribers and institutions founded on prescribing. That is the importance of promoting self-efficacy and informed consent, including on Quora: many patients are unaware of the need to protect themselves against exploitative dependence, bad clinical practices, disempowering professional and institutional dynamics, and drug disinformation, while some that are aware nevertheless remain insufficiently equipped.Getting More SpecificSo, in discussing alternatives, we have to deal with several factors, such as:Why is someone being told to use antipsychotics?What are their personal goals in using a treatment?Do they feel that their goals require a medical paradigm at all?What sort of options do they have access to?What is the quality of the administration of those options?What sort of outside support is available, and what values and priorities are involved in that network?Just as there is no situation in which it is appropriate to say antipsychotics are always a good idea, there is also no situation in which it is appropriate to say any other particular option is always a good idea. Antipsychotics are increasingly prescribed for an unbounded collection of concerns, both physical and psychological, even in the absence of significant clinical evidences. To say that I suggest a particular alternative would mean we are dealing with a specific purpose, including a specific patient with a certain history and their own unique goals, preferences, and responses.Systemic FailuresMore than almost anything else, you could consider my stance one of critiquing the de-individualization of industrialized medicine. My critique is not saying that the assembly line approach never works for anyone, but rather that we should expect better than an approach which explicitly acknowledges to be ignoring the needs and reactions of huge portions of patients while maintaining only a rough statistical accountability even to the core populations of focus.Thus, the notion of alternatives for me is not about replacing one or two steps in that assembly line, but proposing that we cannot make adequate headway continuing with a failed paradigm. And this is not just the paradigms of decentralized and de-personalized care, but also of medicalizing difficulties that often have no particular medical undergirding and neglecting the influence of things like social environment and cultural self-regard in the context of difficulties that are liable to involve the prescribing of antipsychotics.Finding FocusSo, this isn’t really a “Solve for x” math equation where there are objective and perhaps even finite solutions. We are instead talking about pluralistic experiences with interdependent elements and the relatively unlimited ability to impact our own humanity. And in this rich and complex interactive domain, it is often relevant to ask why something is happening before we decide how to respond to it. Giving it a label, like “schizophrenia” or “insomnia” or “acting out”, does not explain that ‘why’ or illuminate a mechanically specific way to alter undesirable experiences or outcomes.This is also to say, it is often useful to recognize that some experiences are themselves the results rather than the origins of a problem. If we refuse to explore the patterns and history underlying concerns like anxiety, depression, or psychosis, we are giving up on understanding and specifically addressing whatever set into motion present experiences. Now, we cannot always discern just why something is happening, so I am not suggesting that someone should refuse to take action without a detailed background, but trying to establish one is one of the most appropriate early steps in the process of effecting change.AlternativesAll that said, I must reiterate how difficult it is to concisely present “alternatives”—there are too many variables to responsibly and even halfway-comprehensively list such ideas. You never specify “alternative” for what, which is just as important as all the other contextual details, and there is no real restriction on the range of things antipsychotics get prescribed for.It is also vital to mention that we would ideally discuss more than just “intervention”-type alternatives, and how to supplement with them. For example, prevention programs that focus on psychosocial self-efficacy are a viable alternative but do not address all aspects of present concerns (like crises which have already begun), and the needs in short-term or sudden/‘acute’ difficulties may differ from those of prolonged or recurring ones.Ultimately, you ask a very broad and somewhat abstract question, like “What should we do about racism?” or “How can I be a good artist?” It is a great question, but without doing even more research and basically writing an entire book, I can only provide a brief and limited answer. I don’t want this to end up as a contraction rather than an expansion.Resources, Part 1To try and offer some form of answer which mentions specific ideas, I will open this final portion with bulletpoints of general categories. These do not get into specific plans, which need to be modified for each individual anyway, but instead try to shed light on the range of potential factors someone can focus on in changing how they experience their life.Changes in habit: adjusting or aligning things like diet, exercise, sleep patterns, social or physical environment, exposures (to stressors, to toxins, etc), chosen reactions to situations or experiencesChanges in perspective: facilitating more constructive orientations like self-regard, worldview, internal dialogues, social integration, paradigms of health or wholeness, interrelationships (with other people, with the world, with the universe)Changes in expression: exploring modalities revolving around things like art and music, performance, peer discussions, advocacy, public service, spiritual or religious participation, meditation, philosophy of movement, interacting with animals or plantsSeeing if “treatment” is a useful idea: perhaps there is a medical condition requiring address, or maybe someone identifies with the “mental illness” conceptualization of psychological difficulties, or perhaps there are other philosophies of self or mind or existence which contextualize “healing” in a way someone finds beneficialIn essence, they all form a single network of interinfluencing facets of thought and experience, but how we interact with them can sometimes depend on the way we choose to categorize them. Your own list, and priorities, and examples may be organized or filled out quite differently. If you take nothing else from my post, it is that what works on the personal level is of primary relevance.Resources, Part 2Getting most specific, I have included a variety of on-site and off-site links to get you started on alternatives that people have tried and found value in. I will kick it off with an impressive 111 item list by Chaya Grossberg which can be found here: 111 Things to Try Before Going On Psychiatric Drugs. Below, I link to many further examples from different kinds of sources, each of which often entail their own formatting and intended audience and most of which provide a more extended context for the methods discussed within.These examples mean to serve as a small sampling of the things people have sometimes found helpful outside of, in addition to, or in lieu of antipsychotic drugs. Just like with the use of drugs, they may still require proper education and implementation, personal adjustments, and moving on if you discover that something is not a good fit for you. Some involve professionals or other people, but many do not. Some have a learning curve, but plenty require no serious preparation or previous familiarity.I focus primarily on psychosis because there are dozens of applications it would be nice to provide examples for but that would just be a dizzy mess of links. There are already plenty of threads on Quora about non-antipsychotic approaches to some of the most common concerns often garnering prescriptions, like anxiety or depression or insomnia, and community-oriented websites would probably be good places to start looking for coverage of other difficulties like chronic headaches, elder care, and ‘autism spectrum’ experiences..A few examples of Quora posts touching on this topic:Can a schizophrenic recover without medication?Mark Dunn's answer to How long does a schizophrenic patient has to take antipsychotic drugs for treatment?Mark Dunn's answer to Is it possible to slowly get off antipsychotics and live a normal life if you have paranoid schizophrenia?.A few examples of resources from support organizations:Welcome to the Crisis Toolkithttp://www.mindfreedom.org/kb/mental-health-alternatives.A few examples of news/blog style discussions:What Is Wrong With Psychiatry?Recovering From Schizophrenia Not Rare - Schizophrenia Articles - Thought Disorders | HealthyPlaceRecovering from Schizophrenia Without Medication | Mad in America.A few examples of resources from individual professionals and former patients:Empathic Therapy | Psychiatric Drug FactsHealing psychosis: stories, information and resourcesPersonal Success Stories from People with Schizophrenia.A few examples of medical journal articles discussing what has previously worked for specific kinds of situations:http://psychrights.org/research/Digest/Chronicity/treatacute.pdfhttp://psychrights.org/research/Digest/Effective/BKaronTragedyofnoPsychotherapy4Schizophrenia.pdfSpontaneous remission of schizophrenic psychoses following maternal death

To add to the other answers, then it’s actually quite a challenge to land on Europa. I’m not at all sure we should be doing it now even.First, the surface is unknown at the scale of meters, most of it. One theory for instance is that parts of the surface might be covered in closely spaced vertical “ice blades” or “ice knives” which would make a landing there hard to achieve. On Earth these blades form quickly. On Europa they would take millions of years to form, but it’s the same basic process. As Daniel Hobley said: "Light coming in at a high angle will illuminate the sides of the blades, causing them to retreat away,"These are called Penitentes. See Penitentes: Peculiar Spikey Snow Formation in the AndesThis video shows how they form on Earth and decline, time lapse:Here is a photo from the European Southern Observatory site high in the Atacama desert:Planetary Analogue, see also their Icy Penitents by Moonlight on Chajnantor, and Iconic, Conical Licancabur Watches Over ChajnantorICE KNIVES ON EUROPAOn Europa, if they exist, they can potentially be meter scale or higher, and with no atmosphere, the conditions on Europa might well be ideal for their formation. Our missions to Europa so far haven’t taken high enough resolution photos to see them. Ice blades threaten Europa landing - BBC NewsThey wouldn’t be the result of ice or snow subliming into an atmosphere, obviously. It’s a slightly different process. Instead they’d be the result of the sunlight causing the ice to sublime to water vapour in a vacuum at very low temperatures. Also they would form slowly over much longer timescales, of millions of years.The surface of Europa is about 50 million years old, so when asking if penitentes can form on Europa, one of the main questions is, how much can the ice there erode under the influence of sunlight in 50 million years? The answer to this question is extremely sensitive to the peak temperatures on Europa, to the extent that twenty degrees can make a difference between formations that are meter scale and ones that are on the scale of millimeters.In the paper: HOW ROUGH IS THE SURFACE OF EUROPA AT LANDER SCALE? Hobley et al produce this tableSo, for a surface temperature of 132 K (about -150 C) it loses about 5.66 meters over the average age of the surface of 50 million years. For a temperature of 128 °K (-154 °C) it loses 1.28 meters in 50 million years, tailing off to 1 cm at 116 °K (-166 °C), and only millimeters at 114 °KSo this is very sensitive to the peak surface temperatures of Europa. Also, the surface is eroded by sputtering from the Jupiter radiation and from bolide (meteorite) impacts. That would counteract the effects of the ice blade formation at temperatures of 126 downwards. They conclude in the paper that the knives could be from one meter to 10 centimeters in height, probably restricted to within 15 or 20 degrees of the equator.However Europa also has “true polar wander” by which the entire crust moves over the subsurface ocean. This could reduce the size of the blades but also move the ice blades away from the equatorial regions.UPTURNED ICEBERGS - FOR REGIONS LIKE THERA MACULA - AMONGST THE MOST INTERESTING REGIONS ON EUROPAOther issues could include a frozen landscape consisting mainly of upturned icebergs. According to some ideas, then hot plumes of melted water rise from the deep subsurface sea and eventually reach the surface and produce these irregular landscapes as icebergs form on the freezing surface and then turn over.One of the most interesting regions, thought to be most likely to have thin ice over liquid water by the “thin icers” is the Thera MaculaThis might be a region of overturned icebergs with, perhaps, liquid water still present only a short distance below the surface. Most of these chaos regions are raised, which suggests the ice below them that lead to their formation has frozen. But Therea Macula is actually a dip in the surface of Europa which may be a sign that it has the denser melted water still beneath it. See Is Europa's ice thin or thick? At chaos terrain, it's both!POSSIBILITY OF LIQUID WATER CLOSE TO THE SURFACE OR BREAKING THROUGHSo there could also be liquid water close to the surface. Geysers are another possibility. So again there may be a small chance of our lander crashing through thin ice or a soft surface, especially if we land it on the most interesting regions such as Thera Macula. Or it could fall into a crevasse and be unable to communicate.I know the plan is to orbit Europa for a while before the lander gets there, but what if the orbiter doesn’t find any suitable spot for the design of lander, and decides a different design of lander is needed, or no lander at all? Maybe the lander has to land somewhere uninteresting, or they have to hold back from landing at all for planetary protection reasons?CAN WE STERILIZE A SPACECRAFT 100%Then the other problem is that we don’t know how to sterilize a spacecraft 100%. Or more accurately, we can sterilize a spacecraft completely, but the methods that do this, such as prolonged heat, or ionizing radiation, also destroy the electronics so it won’t work any more. That includes of course the ionizing effect of Jupiter’s radiation - although the surface of Europa is riddled with ionizing radiation that would quickly kill any human, any spacecraft there has to survive this, at least up to the landing, which would mean that it is protected sufficiently that microbes could survive also.If there are some microbes on the lander, and they survive to the landing, then it might impact into liquid, or create a liquid area due to a crash on Europa which might be deep enough to shield microbes so they can reproduce there. Or microbial spores brought to Europa with the lander could eventually in the future over thousands or years find their way into the ocean.KEEPING SAFE - SAMPLE GEYSERSI think the best solution here is to focus on sampling any geysers instead. We can already do that with a mission to Enceladus. This is less known but it also may have life.Geysers on Enceladus (moon of Saturn). A spacecraft could fly through these geysers (Cassini has done so many times now). It could do a detailed analysis and even a life search as according to some theories, the water in these geysers was in Enceladus’ ocean as recently as a few months before they are ejected into space. Europa may have geysers also but with its larger gravity they may not go so high into space, so may be harder to spot.For these reasons I think with Europa we should focus on an orbiter or flybys first. I think we shouldn’t design a lander at all, but we should put instruments on the orbiter that have the dual capability, as for Cassini, to analyse any plumes found on Europa since that seems a distinct possibility.FAST FOLLOW UP LANDERSBy the 2030s when the mission gets there, then our technology may be so advanced we can send a follow up orbiter or lander within months or a year or two. In any case I think we simply should not risk a lander at this stage due to planetary protection issues unless we can sterilize it 100%, or somehow can prove that there is no significant possibility of it irreversibly introducing Earth microbes to Europa. Even a 1 in 10,000 chance of contaminating Europa with Earth life, I think would be too high, given what we may be risking there, some unique discoveries that we could never do anywhere else. E.g. it could be some early form of life, not as far evolved as DNA or evolved in a different direction, which might be very vulnerable to DNA based life. And it’s probably impossible to do an accurate assessment of how likely it is that we could irreversibly introduce Earth life to Europa by mistake, we just don’t know enough yet about Europa or about exobiology with no examples yet of any known exobiology to base our decisions on.Again by the 2030s we may have the technology to sterilize a spacecraft 100% without destroying the electronics. I hope so!MISSION TO ENCELADUS GEYSERS - AND PERHAPS IDENTICAL MISSION TO EUROPAMeanwhile one thing we can do right away is to send a mission to Enceladus to analyse its geysers close up, and it would be reasonable I think to send life detection instruments on that mission too. Instruments that would help with analysing whateer is in the particles, able to detect complex organics, and also able to find indications of life too if present.If funding permitted, perhaps we could also send an identical orbiter geyser fly through mission to Europa “on spec” just in case we find geysers there, to save time. I think that would be less risky than a lander, no danger of crashing, and likely to add to our understanding of Europa even if it has no geysers, by examining the region around Europa just as Cassini did for Rhea etc.There’s some evidence already of possible water plumes from Europa - though it’s a one off observation by Hubble which hasn’t been repeated. It might have just been a meteorite impact. If it is evidence of geysers, that could be very exciting for search for life on Europa. Water Plumes on Europa: What Lies Beneath?In any case as I said, I think we should equip any Europa orbiter with similar instruments to Cassini which would help with analysing any dust or ice particles or gas around Europa with the capability of detecting complex organics, which may be in them whether or not Europa has life, and I think we should add chirality detection at a minimum. There’d surely be some dust or gas to analyse even if there are no plumes.SAMPLE RETURN - WHY QUARANTINE DOESN’T WORKLater we may do a sample return to Earth. But I think we can do a lot in situ - even just plumes, the composition probably varies depending on where you fly through them, and also on the position in the orbit, may also depend on conditions in the deep ocean, maybe it has the equivalent of algae blooms down there from time to time.And we have many instruments now we can send to do in situ searches, miniaturized “lab on a chip” that just ten years ago would fill an entire laboratory which also have minimal power requirements too.As for returning it to Earth, if we return a sample likely to contain life or with some chance of life, I think we should return to above GEO, furthest in delta v away from both the Earth or Moon and study it telerobotically from Earth until we are sure what is in it and what precautions are needed if any. I don't think it makes much sense economically, legally, or that we can even do it safely, to try to build a facility to study all conceivable forms of exobiology on the surface of Earth quite yet when we don't yet know of a single example of exobiology outside of Earth.,Quarantine just doesn't work, see my Case For Moon First - why quarantine doesn’t work - this is for Mars, but the same would apply for life returned from anywhere. There is no way we'd abandon an astronaut permanently in the ISS if they were exposed to Europa samples, I don't think it is ethically or legally possible to do that even if they consented.A quarantine period only works if you know what you are quarantining against and how long you need to do the quarantine for. And the risks are not just the effects on humans but effects on many other creatures, plants etc as well as long term effects on ecosystems. We can't test that in space just by exposing lifeforms to it. I think there is no alternative to really knowing what is in the sample before you decide whether you can expose humans and other lifeforms to it and what precautions to take. Which means you have to study it somewhere isolated from Earth's lifeforms first and I think you'd need stupendously reliable methods to do that on Earth, far better to do it telerobotically in orbit.So, I think that’s the way ahead myself, sample the plumes in situ. Return samples eventually but to above GEO. And if we do a lander, it needs to be sterilized sufficiently for biologically reversible exploration. We must not introduce Earth life irreversibly to Europa or Enceladus, in my view. If it’s likely to encounter liquid water, or create a liquid water habitat through impact, hard to see how anything short of 100% sterilization would be sufficient. We need some way to sterilize all the life from a lander while keeping the electronics intact. One promising approach may be to use supercritical CO2 snow in combination with other methods.I think that may be possible in the future but we can’t do it quite yet.ON HUYGENS AND TITANSorry forgot to cover that - though it’s covered in the other answers. Huygens was an easy experiment if going to Saturn's system anyway. With Titan’s thick atmosphere they could use aerobraking. Also the Titan’s surface is so cold Earth life can’t survive there so there were almost no planetary protection issues. (Titan may have a deep subsurface liquid water ocean but if so, then there doesn’t seem to be much communication with the surface).And actually there is a remote possibility of life in Titan’s oceans though it would be very exotic for us. First, because of the extreme cold, it would surely rely on chemical reactions that run much faster at those temperatures than the ones in our cells would do - otherwise the life there would be very sluggish. There’d be evolutionary pressure to use faster chemical reactions.Also it would have the cells kind of “inside out” with non polar molecules facing the methane / ethane oceans, because those are non polar liquids, instead of the usual arrangement. Indeed it might be made of a small polar molecule like acrylonitrile sticking together to form a non polar membrane in the non polar solvent of methaneNormal cell walls are arranged to be polar (having regions of positive and negative charge both inside and outside to attract the water) like this:The tail repels water (hydrophobic) so naturally meets together in the middle of the cell wall. For details of this idea that life on Titan would need to use a non polar membrane, see Is There a Kraken in Kraken Mare? What Kind of Life Would We Find on Titan? - Universe Today, and Possible oxygen free cell structure made of organic nitrogen compounds that could function at the low temperatures of Titan's ocean.Glint of sunlight on the lake region around the northern pole of Titan.Cassini did make some measurements that Chris McKay interpreted as possibly a sign of life processes on Titan, though he listed several other possibilities that may be more likely: Alien Life on Titan? Hang on Just a Minute… - Universe TodayHowever Hugens was not designed to search for life. Maybe some future spacecraft to Titan’s oceans will take off from where it began?See also Prebiotic Chemistry on Titan?SAFE AND EASY LANDINGS FOR EUROPA - “ICE BREAKING” INSTEAD OF “AEROBRAKING”Huygens was an easy experiment yes, for Titan. We can’t do aerobraking on Europa.However you could do equally easy experiments for Europa - one idea is a penetrator, using what we could call "ice breaking" to slow it down. I'm not a fan of that myself for planetary protection reasons unless the penetrator can be sterlized 100%.PLANETARY PROTECTION FRIENDLY VERSION - ARTIFICIAL GEYSER - BERND DACHWALD’S IDEAHowever there’s a planetary protection friendly version of it. You could use two spacecraft - a dumb penetrator consisting of just a metal slug, easily sterilized. This sends a plume of ice into space. You could use two “dumb penetrators” with the second one closely following the first for more effect.In effect, you are creating an artificial geyser here. This would be followed by a low flying orbiter to capture the sample for analysis.That would have minimal planetary protection issues if the dumb penetrators can be 100% sterile - e.g. just lumps of metal heated beforehand to temperatures where no Earth microbes could survive or otherwise 100% sterilized before impact. This is an idea Bernd Dachwald (head of the German IceMole project) once suggested to me in conversation, which I think is an interesting one.CHIPSATS FOR EUROPA - COULD THEY BE 100% STERILIZED?Another interesting idea, here is an old mission idea to send “chipsats” to Europa’s surface, each one rather “dumb” but lots of them, each one consists of just a few sensors on a flat chip. Some would fail but enough would get through, and they would be able to survive impacts that a larger more complex lander couldn’t.That sounds like a kind of a lander that is so minimal, perhaps it could be 100% sterilized by supercritical CO2 snow or something similar? That’s a technique that can remove all the organics from the surface of an electronics chip without damaging the chip. It’s been shown to work with USB drives. So though it might be tricky to scale up to a complete spacecraft, I wonder if it is good enough to 100% sterilize chipsats? It would have to be 100% reliable."ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE" --New NASA Mission to Europa will Ignore Arthur C Clarke's Warning (2014 Most Popular)CAN WE ACHIEVE 100% STERILE ELECTRONICS FOR A EUROPA LANDER?There’s no in principle reason to prevent 100% sterile electronics. You just have to find some process that electronics can withstand and life can’t. If you heat metal to hundreds of degrees C for instance, no life will survive and the result will be 100% sterile. The problem is that this will destroy the spacecraft electronics too. So can we find a way to sterilize it of Earth microbes without destroying the delicate equipment? That’s the big question here.Also all this might be far easier to do with a chipsat than with a large conventional spacecraft.First one method being explored by the European Space Agency is Deep cleaning with carbon dioxide. and Science Daily article about it.CO2 a liquid at 100 atmospheres and 50 C.And then on release of pressure turns to snow and takes the dirt, organics, everything away leaving the surface dry.Mixed with Hydrogen peroxide and other chemical to increase effectiveness.Can be used even with sensitive electronics. Was used to clean usb drives in testing and they functioned afterwards.Surface is left with no trace of organics, not just with dead micro-organisms. Major plus!Could you remove all traces of organics from the exterior in this way? And - can you also keep exterior and interior separate so there is no chance of leaking contamination from inside the mole?HIGH TEMPERATURE STERILIZATIONThen also, if you can make the whole thing able to withstand high temperatures, you can just heat it up to a high enough temperature to sterilize all life.The main issue with sterilizing modern spacecraft is that many instruments are quite delicate, also they can go out of alignment,so even the sterilization temperatures used for Viking of 111 °C for 40 hours is too much for them.But there are electronic circuits now designed to operate at up to 200°C . High-Temperature ElectronicsAnd there are other developments that should permit temperatures of 200°C upwards :).High-Temperature Electronics Operate at 300 degrees C | EE Times and Designing for extreme temperaturesThere’s an economic incentive for developing these electronics, as they are useful in oil wells and motor cars.I’ve never seen this suggested for a way to keep Europa landers sterile, but it sounds as if it should work!Back to the drawing board probably for a lot of the designs to make the whole thing uses chips and solders etc that work up to high enough temperatures for 100% sterilization. But it seems like it may be possible! Thanks to Adeel Khan for the suggestionIs this right? Is it possible to achieve 100% sterilization by heating electronics that’s capable of resisting temperatures of up to 300 C. I wonder if anyone working in the field of spacecraft sterilization has investigated this, either experimentally or in theory. Or is there some other way to achieve 100% sterile electronics such as the CO2 snow approach?I think we need to look into that myself before we consider sending any probes to habitats that may include liquid water habitable to Earth life. Except of course for the plume flybys. They are safe so long as the ice particles they collect can’t dislodge microbe spores and return them to the liquid water in the subsurface oceans. That sounds likely to be for all practical purposes, zero risk though you’d need to examine it carefully of course.MULTIPLE METHODS AT ONCEPerhaps for the best results both can be used one after the other. High temperature to make sure there is nothing viable. Then CO2 snow to remove the organics as far as possible. Heat it up again before it is released from the orbiter for a final precaution to make sure.Especially for electronics in an impactor / penetrator as that would have to withstand high g force and perhaps high temperatures too, so it would need to use specially hardened electronics. And it needs to be hardened for the ionizing radiation for Europa as well so you are hardly talking about “off the shelf” electronics here.A RATHER MORE FAR OUT IDEA - 3D PRINTER ON EUROPA PLUS RAW MATERIALS FOR SOME OF THE COMPONENTSAnother idea, just for fun for now - but: land a sterile 3D printer + some raw material feedstock for it, also sterile. The surface would be high vacuum, ideal for electronics. First thing it does is to 3D print a shelter for itself or dig below the surface for protection from the cosmic radiation. Then it sets about printing out whatever you need, including a Europa submarine from the sterile components you supplied it with. If it is a nanoscale printer it can do circuit boards as well. So all you need to do is to send it some sterile chips to attach to those circuit boards, and other hard to print out components pre-sterilized. Most of the rest it does itself.This is a bit far future perhaps.But perhaps some element of 3D printing could help for an idea of partial in situ construction of devices for helping to study Europa in a sterile way? Especially small chipsat type devices. Sterile electronics plus 3D printing of some extra components to help with mobility or sampling or some such.IF WE CAN’T ACHIEVE 100% STERILE LANDERS FOR EUROPAIf we can’t do it, I think we simply should not send a lander or submarine to Europa until we can, and should not risk introducing Earth microbes to a habitable environment on Europa.It is just risking too much to do that. Not just for us, not just for the mission that goes to Europa right now, but for our descendants and indeed all future civilizations on Earth also. It would be just tragic to find some interesting form of exobiology on Europa only to know that we have seeded Europa with microbes that will eventully make it extinct.It could be very vulnerable to Earth life. The example I like best there is the idea of some primitive early life, for instance RNA based, or even an RNA ocean or autopoetic cells. If Europa was like that, then introduced Earth microbes in a globally connected ocean through exponential growth would surely do short work of converting it all to DNA based life.WHY NOT JUST SEND EARTH LIFE THERE (MORE DETAIL)?Because then we won't be able to find out about the life that is already there, if there is any - or pre-biotic or non biotic chemistry - or whatever there is there right now. Especially since our life could make it extinct. About half of Earth's biological history in terms of gene complexity is unknown to us. We just have no idea how the early organic chemicals developed into lifeforms as complex as the simplest microbes. Lot's of sketched out suggestions but no answers and it is way beyond any attempt to simulate in a laboratory.Well one likely thing to find in the Europa ocean, if life is common, is some early form of life. Maybe RNA based life. Maybe just an RNA ocean. Or maybe autopoetic cells. Or some primitive lifeform that reproduces, sort of, but not nearly as accurately as DNA life does. Or perhaps it's RNA based using ribozymes in the place of rhibozomes, everything done in RNA. And that's just a few examples based on what might have happened in our own planet's past. Europa life may well not be related to Earth life at all. In the entire history of the solar system, at most a handful of rocks may have made it from Earth to Europa. So it could be something else as well.As those examples show, it could be very vulnerable. An RNA ocean say, or RNA only lifeform could perhaps become extinct after just a few years of exponential growth after the first contamination by Earth life throughout the entire ocean, especially if it is all connected and its ocean has food sources for the life to use. And however quickly or slowly it happens, there is no way we could reverse something like that once it got started. It would be the worst possible anticlimax to all our searches for life in our solar system, to know that Europa was such a biologically fascinating place, until the first probes from Earth landed there, and is no longer like that.Until we know what's there, I think we have to treat every potentially habitable planet or moon or other habitat in our solar system as if it was the only one of its type in the solar system. Because a lifeform that evolves in Europa's ocean may well not evolve in Enceladus, or Ceres or on Mars or whatever place you study next. It could be our only opportunity for light years in every direction, to study such a lifeform.Perhaps they all have different unique lifeforms or types of pre-biotic life.Perhaps they all have almost identical independently evolved life (very surprising I think).Perhaps life from a previous star seeded them all or most of them.Perhaps only one of them has life, or none of them do.They are sure to have complex chemistry and we can learn from that also, maybe learn that life evolves only with great difficulty and find out what happens when it doesn't evolve too. We won't know until we find out.As for experiments in Earth based life in space - we can do closed system habitats to try that out anywhere. For instance the Moon may have vast caves kilometers in diameter, so maybe we do it there. Or in free flying space habitats. There's enough material in the asteroid belt alone to create habitats with a total land area a thousand times that of Earth. There may be many opportunities to do that. We don't need to have as our first priority to turn everything into the closest possible approximation to Earth we can imagine, especially a very poor imitation of it, an ocean covered in kilometers of ice with the harsh environment of Jupiter's radiation on the surface, and too far from the sun for most photosynthetic life to be practical and not at all in its oceans (except for life that uses the heat radiation from hydrothermal vents for photosynthesis).And meanwhile constructed habitats from asteroid materials can be designed with whatever environment you like, tropical gardens if you like, depending how much sunlight you reflect into it using space mirrors or solar collectors, or simulate conditions on Europa or Mars or other places in our solar system if that's your aim. Or you could simulate some the conditions on an interesting exoplanet. You can use spinning habitats with artificial gravity for whatever level of gravity you want, too.That's looking forward a bit there - but only decades, centuries at most. You could build a Stanford Torus habitat within a decade or two with the funding and political will to do so even with present day technology. If we want to explore setting up habitats with Earth life in it outside of Earth, I think things like that would be the way to go - starting on a much smaller scale first probably. You could start with small exovivaria in LEO or on the Moon, and experiments with closed system recycling.While there’s no way we can duplicate the billions of years of Europa’s history and the vast oceans larger than Earth’s oceans. If we mess it up, then the nearest “Europa” analogue may be light years away. And even then, chances are that if Europa and some Europa analogue both have life, even then most likely it has its own unique lifeforms, probably not even the same informational polymer in the place of whatever Europa has - not at all likely that it has the same lifeforms or proto life that evolved on Europa.SO WHY DID THEY SEND A LANDER TO TITAN INSTEAD OF EUROPA- WRAP UP?I think it might be partly that they were sending a spacecraft to the Saturn system anyway. In the case of the Jupiter system, then it’s much harder to visit Europa for more than a short time because of the ionizing radiation. Still you could do a penetrator with a fast flyby and that would work much like Huygens. It could communicate back to Earth during the flight to Europa and if it survived the landing, do some experiments and report back during its design life whatever it is.But it would have many more planetary protection issues to work through than a Titan mission. I think myself best to wait for the orbiter mission first before we decide what to do next. We might well find plumes as for Europa and that would make it really easy to sample it’s ocean with a low flyby or orbiter and then we might not need a lander at all for the first missions there.SEE ALSOSee also my "Super Positive" Outcomes For Search For Life In Hidden Extra Terrestrial Oceans Of Europa And EnceladusYou might be interested in the facebook group: Search for ExtraTerrestrial Life - Europa & Enceladus + Subsurface OceansSee also my As Philae Awakes - Where Might Life Hide In Our Solar System?EXPANDED VERSION OF THIS ANSWERI’ve done a longer version of this answer which also looks at the Hubble plume observations and the Europa lander / flyby mission ideas here:Hubble Spots Europa Geysers Again - How They Did It - And What Next? Flyby? Lander?

It is generally acceptable, and not plagiarism, to paraphrase material from any work with an appropriate citation for each paragraph, or for each element that is clearly attributed to the original author, with a reference listing at the end of the paper. Paraphrasing consists of different wording, wherein no more than two consecutive words are copied. The institution one is attending should provide guidance on formatting expectations, and the instructor should be consulted. Below is an abbreviated version of the American Psychological Association formatting guide I provided to graduate students in courses I taught.There are two commonly used academic formatting systems for scholarly works, to include the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, summarized below (a new edition has been subsequently published, and some formatting has been lost in uploading to Quora) and at: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/; and Modern Language Association (MLA) https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/.Writing GuidelinesThis document attempts to provide the expected standards to achieve that level of work, and identifies common errors in adherence to the assignment writing requirements as stated in the Syllabus and American Psychological Association (APA) publication format as presented in the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (2001). It is also recommended that students review Common Errors in English (Brians, 2007). Another resource is the Guide to Grammar and Style, on the Rutgers University web site (Lynch, 2007) (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/).The point of an academic institution being accredited is that the academic experience and academic rigor are generally equivalent among institutions. This facilitates a standard for acceptance of academic qualifications when it comes to teaching, research, and professional capabilities. “Rigor” concerns the requirement for students to conduct critical research of the literature, and demonstrate their skill through the incorporation of appropriate materials, notwithstanding the student’s location. That is not to say that allowances for extenuating circumstances should not be employed, they should. One way that is done is by offering a lenient course extension policy, allowing for the time consuming accumulation of appropriate references. But, devaluing the education provided by accepting substandard work does not serve the student well, and does not uphold the standards required for continued accreditation.Assignments will also be measured against the following criteria:1. Plagiarism results from failure to use quote marks and citations for the exact words of another and/or from failure to use citations when paraphrasing another author (i.e., summarizing, rearranging, or substituting for the words of another) (APA, 2001, sec. 8.05, Principle 6.22). See paragraphs 11-19 below for citation format, and paragraph 34 for the Reference list. The following are identified as academic dishonesty, which can result in penalties as severe as dismissal from the University:· Submitting another's work· Writing for someone else· Group effort without faculty consent· Buying a paper· Getting or giving outside help without faculty permission· Submitting the same work for different courses2. Please note that “primary sources” are an element of an exemplary paper. References like “Wikipedia,” “Psychology Today,” and “Court TV” are not primary sources, are not peer reviewed (reviewed for empirical integrity, accuracy, and authenticity), and are not appropriate references for scholarly writing (with the possible exception of use for anecdotal background information or case study information for course purposes). Primary sources consist of professional and scholarly journals and textbooks, they report empirical results, and they are peer reviewed for empirical integrity, accuracy, and authenticity. Establishing the credentials of the author is an important aspect of identifying appropriate sources. The authors of primary sources are established professionals and/or recognized authorities who present validated and verified theories. Journalists do not normally possess the professional qualifications necessary to evaluate the material they are presenting, and therefore should not be relied upon in essays for this course.3. Precision and clarity are called for by the APA. Economy of expression is necessary; avoid literary device, jargon, wordiness, anthropomorphism (human attributes attributed animals or objects), redundancy, cliché, colloquial expressions, euphemistic phrases, slang, and ambiguous comparisons. "Always" and "never" are seldom appropriate; most situations exist on a continuum. Verb tense should remain consistent throughout the essay, and past tense is appropriate for cited material. Use simple declarative sentences when possible, with simple and common words (APA, 2001, sec. 2.02-2.04). Hyperbole and superlatives are not appropriate for scholarly writing, and it is fine to “believe” something (as long as assertions are supported logically and/or empirically), but not to “feel.” Informally, "feel broadly substitutes for think or believe, but in scientific style such latitude is not acceptable" (APA, 2001, sec. 2.04).4. Passive voice may confuse the reader by de-emphasizing the actor and emphasizing the object. Clearly identify the subject, and place the subject before the verb. [Example: The bullet struck him in the head. Not: He was struck by the bullet.] [Example: Turvey (2001) has stated that the organized/disorganized dichotomy has no empirical support. Not: It has been argued the organized/disorganized dichotomy has no empirical support.] (APA, 2001, sec. 2.06).5. Unsupported generalizations and assertions will be challenged. If one has an opinion, it must be supported, and there is an expectation that reasons for belief will be articulated6. Many deficiencies result from lack of proofreading, it is a good idea to put the work aside, and then proofread before submission.7. Contractions are not used in scholarly writing.8. “It’s” is a contraction of it is, and does not show possession.9. Allot means to apportion or grant, “a lot” is an informal way to say “a great deal,” or “often,” do not use “a lot.” And, “allot” does not mean a lot.10. A series of elements must be in parallel in form, example: The results show that white becomes black and that red becomes green (APA, 2001, sec. 2.11).11. When another’s words are taken from a source (generally three or more consecutive words), quote marks must be used (see paragraph 1 re: plagiarism); and, authors, publication date (not the reprint date), and page numbers must be cited [Example: (Author, 2007, p. 1) (see paragraph 12 for more examples)]. Author and publication date must be included in a citation for each instance of paraphrased material unless it occurs within the same paragraph, then a citation with the author only is sufficient as long as it cannot be confused with other works. If a quote is used later in a paragraph where the source is cited and that is the only source, a page number citation is sufficient [e.g., (p. 5)]. The paragraph may be cited as the consecutively numbered paragraph following a particular heading (APA, 2001, sec. 3.34-3.94). Ellipses (...) are not used at the beginning of a quote, and the capitalization of first letter of the first word in a quote can be changed to match the placement in the essay. For the purposes of this course, in a four to five paragraph essay, a single citation in the first paragraph is sufficient if that is the only source. In electronic works, a paragraph number must be used if page numbers are unavailable [Example: (Holmes & Holmes, 2002, para. 3)]. Personal interviews are cited as:(Paragraph indented in total “block quote”)Supervisory Special Agent Rhonda Trahern, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), was queried concerning her position at the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (personal communication, February 12, 2008).12. Sentence punctuation follows the citation, except in block quotes (quotes of 40 or more words, see paragraph 19 below). [Examples: a. Holmes and Holmes (2002, p. 3) stated, “words.” b. Holmes and Holmes (2002) stated, “words” (p. 3). c. “Words” (Holmes & Holmes, 2002, p. 3) d. Holmes and Holmes stated, “words” (2002, p. 3). (APA, 2001, sec. 3.34 & 3.95). For a website list author or Corporate/Organizational author, no date, Section Heading, paragraph: Example (The Smoking Gun, n.d., The Telltale "Splotch," para. 2).]13. Sample citation, multiple authors: Smith, Jones, and Andrews (2004, p. 1) or (Smith, Jones, & Andrews, 2004, p. 1), after first use: Smith et al. (2004) or (Smith et al., 2004) (APA, 2001, sec. 3.95). Sample citation corporate or group author: first use: (American Psychological Association [APA], 2001), second use: (APA, 2001).14. Abbreviation for pages: pp. [(Holmes & Holmes, 2002, pp. 10-11)] (APA, 2001, sec. 3.28).15. If material is paraphrased, a citation must be used for each paragraph, unless it is sufficiently clear that the source remains the same. A page number is not required, and only a single citation is needed as long as it is clear that the source remains the same, per APA (2001, sec. 3.39). [Example: This is paraphrased (Holmes & Holmes, 2002).]16. Punctuation is placed within quote marks, unless the citation is at the end. Final sentence punctuation follows the citation enclosed in parentheses. And, an ampersand is only used within parentheses [Examples: Holmes and Holmes (2002, p.10) state, “Profiling: An art, not a science.” “Profiling: An art, not a science” (Holmes & Holmes, 2002, p. 10).] (APA, 2001, sec. 3.36 & 3.95).17. Secondary sources, authors referenced within another work, must be cited properly. References cited within a reference actually consulted (secondary sources) are not listed as a reference in the essay being written, to list a reference that has not been directly consulted in its original form may amount to academic dishonesty. [Example: Jones stated “that this …” (as cited in Smith, 2004, p. 1). The Smith source is listed as a reference.] (APA, 2001, sec. 4.16.A.22). If one is quoting material from a source, do not remove citations included in that material, but do not list that reference in the reference list unless it has been consulted directly for other areas of the essay (APA, 2001, sec. 3.40).18. When 40 or more words are taken from a source, an indented, double spaced block quote must be used, per APA (2001, sec. 3.34-3.41). In the block quote citation, the final sentence punctuation is before the citation in parentheses. Example:Students will write a scholarly paper that addresses one (or possibly a combination of two) of the COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES. This Research Review Paper will demonstrate the student’s ability to research and reason, incorporating the cognitive skills of analysis, synthesis, evaluation, defense of logic, and conclusions.19. Use of 12-pt Times Roman typeface is preferred (and will be used to judge the length of a paper), Courier is the only alternative (APA, 2001, sec. 5.02).20. The first line of every paragraph must be indented (APA, 2001, sec. 4.08).21. Double-spacing is used between all lines, to include between paragraphs (APA, 2001, sec. 5.03).22. The one-inch margins are justified only on the left (APA, 2001, sec. 5.04).23. Sections and sub-sections are continuous, they do not start on a new page (APA. 2001, sec. 5.17). Only the title page and reference list are separate pages.24. Headings are not labeled with numbers or letters (APA. 2001, sec. 3.30).25. Spacing & punctuation, single space after:· Commas, colons, and semicolons· End of sentence punctuation· After period in a person’s initials (e.g., D. L. Robb)· Except after internal abbreviation periods (e.g., U.S., D.C., p.m., i.e.) (APA, 2001, sec. 5.11)26. For a discussion of comma use see Common Errors in English (Brians, 2007), in general, use a comma:· Between elements and before the conjunction in a series of elements· Between nonessential clauses· After the year in dates (On January 1, 2000, a century began.) (APA, 2001, sec. 3.02)27. If what follows a colon stands as a sentence, the first word is capitalized (APA, 2001, sec. 3.12).28. A dash consists of 2 hyphens (APA, 2001, sec. 3.05), and is used to set off parenthetical material that consists of a strong interjection.29. Ellipsis points (…) are only used within quotes between quoted words where intervening words are not used. Quotes do not start or end with ellipsis points (APA, 2001, sec. 3.38).30. Quotation marks used to denote use of a word or phrase as being ironic, as being an invented expression, or as being slang should only be used in the first appearance of that word or phrase (APA, 2001, sec. 3.06) [Example: exhibited “normal” behavior].31. The first use of an acronym or abbreviation must be explained, spell out the words and place the acronym in parentheses (APA, 2001, sec. 3.21).32. Spell out numbers under 10, common fractions, and numbers that begin a sentence. Use figures for numbers that represent exact measurements, dates, rounded large numbers, numbers 10 and higher, and numbers below 10 when grouped with numbers 10 and higher· 3-year-old· 11th-grade student· Grade 6 (except: sixth grade)· in 2 years· age 5· 20 years old (APA. 2001, sec. 3.42-3.44).33. Plural numbers: 1970s, 10s, or 20s (APA, 2001, sec. 3.49)34. Percentages: 46% (APA, 2001, sec. 3.42d).35. In referencing gender, “he/she,” “his/her,” and similar combinations should be avoided, it is recommended that they, them, or their, be used (APA, 2001, sec. 2.13).36. Only use Latin abbreviations within parentheses (APA, 2001, sec. 3.24), etc. would be “and so forth,” e.g. would be “for example” (and e.g. denotes a partial list, therefore, adding “etc.” is redundant), and i.e. would be “that is.”37. The APA (2001) advised that the 10th edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is the standard source for spelling, pluralizing, hyphenating, and presumably Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (2004) is now the standard. The APA does not recommend that dictionary for definitions. Definitions for technology, science, research, and words specific to an academic discipline should be obtained from primary sources (i.e., recognized texts, peer-reviewed sources). If it is necessary to define a common word, the Collegiate Dictionary should be appropriate, although no examples come to mind.38. Reference format: alphabetical order, double space, hanging indent (APA, 2001, Chapter 4). Note that if a book has an editor, then there are other authors of the works within the book; the author of the actual article or chapter is listed in the citation and in the reference list.References (Examples) [I understand that some formatting is stripped on the Discussion Board submissions]:American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author. [corporate or group author]Author, A. A. (2000). Title of work. Location of publisher: Publisher. [Only the first word, the first word after a colon, and proper nouns are capitalized. For the location of the publisher, list city and state abbreviation unless it is a major city known for publishing (i.e., Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco).]Author, A. A., & Author, A. B. (2001). Article title [Only the first word, the first word after a colon, and proper nouns are capitalized.]. Journal Title (journal title capitalized first letter), xx, xxx-xxx [volume, (number), page number].Author, A. A., & Author, A. C. (2002). Chapter title. In A. Editor, & B. Editor (Eds.) Book Title (pp. xxx-xxx). Location: Publisher.Author, B. A. (2003a). Title of work. Location: Publisher. [Citation for source by same author in same year: (Author, 2007a, p. 1)]Author, B. A. (2003b). Title of second work. Location: Publisher.References:American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author.Brians, P. (2007). Common Errors in English. Retrieved on July 30, 2007, from http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.txtLynch, J. (2007). Guide to grammar and style. Rutgers University. Retrieved on December 31, 2007, from: Guide to Grammar and StyleRobb, D. L. (2007). Syllabus: Criminal Justice & Security, Course # CR531, Criminal Profiling. American Military University.Merriam-Webster. (2004). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (11th Ed.). Springfield, MA: Author.