Contents
On September 26, 1991, an airlock closes in Oracle, Arizona. Behind it lie 1.27 hectares under glass: rainforest, savanna, ocean, marsh, desert and farmland, plus some 4,000 introduced species. Four women and four men intend to live here for two years, hermetically sealed off from the outside world. A team could hardly have more shared time. Yet according to accounts from inside, the eight split into two groups. An example of the Team Principle of Development.
Eight People, One Mission
Situation
Biosphere 2 is built between 1987 and 1991 by the company Space Biospheres Ventures. The Texas billionaire Ed Bass finances the project with some $150 million. The crew consists of the physician Roy Walford, Jane Poynter, Taber MacCallum, Mark Nelson, Sally Silverstone, Abigail Alling, Mark Van Thillo and Linda Leigh. The plan: to live for two years in a closed system that provides its own food, water and air.
Connection to the team principle
The Team Principle of Development says: a team is not made by its lineup but by time. Here, both seem to be in place. The lineup is set, and the shared time is fixed at two years, around the clock. That is exactly what makes the example instructive. It tests whether time on its own produces a team.
Hunger and Thin Air
Situation
The harvests are poorer than planned, partly because little light gets through during the El Niño years of 1991–92. The farm supplies 83% of the crew’s food. In the early months the crew members lose an average of 16% of their body weight. On top of that, the oxygen level falls over 16 months from 20.9% to 14.5% – equivalent to the air at an altitude of just over 4,000 meters. Soil microbes consume oxygen, and the fresh concrete absorbs the carbon dioxide this produces. In January and August 1993 oxygen is pumped in from outside. Most of the vertebrates and almost all the pollinating insects die, while cockroaches and an invasive species of ant spread.
Connection to the team principle
Pressure is part of every team’s development. Here it is physical. When you are hungry and short of breath, you have little strength left for patience. But for perspective: the crew’s medical readings were considered good, and psychological tests showed no depression. So the strain alone does not explain the conflict. It sharpens a question that was already open.
Two Camps of Four
Situation
After about six months the group splits into two camps of four. The dispute is fundamental: do they stick to the original plan of strict isolation, or do they accept help from outside to make more research possible? Jane Poynter stood for more research and more openness. Abigail Alling was among those who did not want to water down the mission’s goals. Poynter later said that close friends suddenly found themselves on the other side, and called the behavior of both camps very unprofessional. According to one account, the two sides eventually stopped speaking to each other altogether. There were conflicts outside as well: in 1993 the scientific advisory committee chaired by Tom Lovejoy resigned after clashes with management.
Connection to the team principle
The dispute was not about trifles but about the goal: what is this mission – proof that isolation works, or a research project? As long as a group has two answers to that question, time works against it, not for it. Every additional month hardens the camps. This is where the principle reaches its limit. Time lets a group mature only if the early dispute over goals and rules is fought out and settled. If it is left open, the battle lines harden. A group whose members cannot get away from one another is especially at risk: nobody can step back.
Two Years Endured
Situation
On September 26, 1993, all eight walk out of the enclosure. They have made it through the two years. A second mission begins on March 6, 1994. On April 1, 1994, the on-site management is removed, and the mission ends early on September 6, 1994. Later, Columbia University and then the University of Arizona take over the facility for research.
Connection to the team principle
The eight completed their task. That deserves respect, and it shows something important: a divided group can hold out if each individual has a strong sense of duty. But holding out is not the same as growing together. The amount of shared time is not what counts. What counts is what gets resolved in that time.
Key takeaways
Key Lessons
- Don’t count on tensions “sorting themselves out over time.” Unresolved questions about goals get harder over time, not softer.
- Clarify early and explicitly what you are there for and what takes priority when two good goals collide.
- Decide who makes the call when there is a dispute. A group without a recognized decision-maker easily splits into camps.
- Watch for the first signs of camps forming. If the same people always end up on the same side, raise it.
- Make room for distance and for an outside voice. Where nobody can get out, you need someone who looks in.
Summary
Biosphere 2 put eight people under one glass roof for two years. Hunger and falling oxygen levels put them under pressure. After about half a year the group split over whether isolation or research should take priority, and according to the available accounts the split lasted until the end. The mission was seen through, but the eight never became one. The counterexample sharpens the core statement: a team is not made by its lineup but by time – provided that the questions of goals and rules are resolved in that time.