1 Introduction
The increasing involvement of the private sector in space exploration leads us to focus on the important aspect of sustainability. Indeed, space activities were managed under the umbrella of governments’ ratifying treaties, which have the merit to provide a baseline framework. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), ratified by 116 countries (UN, 1967), a cornerstone of global governance of space exploration provides a solid framework for peaceful and sustainable lunar activities. In 1979, the Moon Agreement (UN, 1979) provided much more detailed guidelines and principles for sustainable activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies. The drawback, however, is that this agreement is not ratified by the most important space-faring states, in particular by those nations most likely to land on the moon and start exploration in the coming decade.
An overall issue, however, is that these treaties were drafted in a period when space activities were associated with states predating the emergence of private space activities. The situation has become even more complicated when, afterwards, several countries have started to issue space acts, with the intention to facilitate (national) commercial activities and encouraging Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) endeavors (Peeters and Ehrenfreund, 2025).
One could raise the question of why, with the present knowledge and rapid developments, treaties governing exploitation, In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) and other commercial activities are not being urgently framed. In light of the present geopolitical conditions of heightened rivalry and mistrust between traditional and aspiring space superpowers, such types of hard-law binding agreements seem very unlikely, if not utopic to reach (Fey and Peeters, 2025).
As a second-best option, we have seen the rise of numerous soft-law non-binding instruments supporting space sustainability which, even if not enforceable, have indirect effect on prestige, incentivize sustainable behaviors in space operations that support trust in the space market due to safer operations, and even can lead to competitive advantages, as will be illustrated by comparable examples further in this text.
An appropriate example of such voluntary instruments is the set of the well-known United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will be further recalled in the next chapter. These 17 goals agreed in 2015, are addressing sustainability aspects related to our planet earth. It is therefore no surprise that there have been some thoughts to add an additional space-oriented goal, and several SDG18 proposals have emerged recently around 2018–2023.
In the following chapter, we will develop the differences between the goals which are covering aspects related to planet earth and the wider aspects of sustainable development goals for societal expansion in the cosmos now and in the future. So, instead of adding another SDG for space whose scope remains more environment-oriented, still to be agreed upon, and currently entails only a fraction of what is necessary to protect in space, and from space for earth, we propose a wide encompassing set of Cosmic Development Goals (CDGs).
The CDGs complement SDGs for missions beyond our planet and ensure responsible missions and settlements so that deeper space exploration keeps benefiting society, economic growth, and all of humankind both on earth and in outer space. CDGs inspired by SDGs include the same three environmental, societal and economic pillars as SDGs, while adapting them to the advancement of humanity into deep space with a chance for a preemptive and more ethical and responsible approach.
Indeed, the difference between the two sets of goals is clear: whereas the SDGs are trying to remedy existing economic, societal and environmental issues identified on earth and resulting from past malpractices, CDGs would enable humanity’s sustainable development in deep space before the environmental, societal and potential geopolitical damages and escalations occur, thanks to best practices adopted by all stakeholders, in continuity of the current progress achieved towards sustainable development on earth. Over the past few years, some initiatives have highlighted many nations’ willingness to follow sustainable norms and best practices for lunar development and deep space exploration across various collaborative projects such as the Bilateral Artemis Accords with more than sixty signatory nations or the Moon Village Association’s Global Expert Group on Sustainable Lunar Activities (GEGSLA) and its Recommended Framework and Key Elements for Peaceful and Sustainable Lunar Activities signed by twenty nations including major space powers signatories to the International Lunar Research Station project (ILRS) (NASA, 2025; MVA GEGLSA, 2022). More of a blueprint architecture with stages of development and open opportunities for international cooperation, the ILRS project is also based upon shared ideas of sustainable lunar development for the benefit of all humankind. The CDGs could further strengthen this trend of sustainable space development, bringing nations around the achievement of these goals and institutionalizing them as a shared norm of responsible space governance.
2 Expanding from the foundations of the space regime and sustainable development goals (SDGs)
At the start of this new millennium, awareness grew that the rapidly expanding industrial production worldwide was increasingly becoming a threat to the sustainability of planet earth. These efforts led to the understanding of a fundamental point, namely, that sustainable development also needed a number of measures of inclusiveness, in particular by better involving emerging countries in the global process of industrialization. This led to the proposal of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
MDGs were endorsed by 189 member states of the United Nations in September 2000. They were in the first place targeting development in emerging countries and focused on immediate needs in these countries to remedy the effects of poverty, poor healthcare, gender equality, and basic education (Diouf, 2019).
An evaluation of the MDGs results concluded that a more global approach was needed due to increasing awareness of post-2000 observations on effects of climate change, environmental protection, depletion of natural resources and food and energy security, requiring more universal emphasis for the goals (UN, 2015). In particular, it was highlighted that targets needed to be well identified in order to track performances, improve accountability and then implement these targeted interventions.
Following these detailed conclusions, a new set of 17 development goals, called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted at a new UN summit in September 2015 in New York, under the title “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (UN, 2016). In addition to the 17 goals, 169 quantified and/or outcome-based targets were agreed upon, as a response to the perceived lack of accountability of the preceding MDGs.
As previously mentioned, it is crucial to stress how such goals have impacted nations and the private sector over the past decade since their adoption and how important it became for both companies and countries to implement these SDGs in business strategies and national objectives, respectively. Indeed, although not enforceable, these goals fit under the umbrella of “soft laws”.
Soft law plays an increasingly important role in a world of complex international relations. Indeed, whereas treaties have a more binding character, they are increasingly hard to shape in our present geopolitical environment. Soft law therefore entails a number of advantages, described as follows (
Saroj and Kolo, 2024):
- -
Soft law is more flexible for adapting to change.
- -
Soft law enables quicker and more detailed agreements.
- -
Soft law enables state players to collaborate on a deeper level.
- -
Soft law limits the consequences of non-compliance.
- -
Soft law enables the state players to adopt the law while retaining their autonomy.
Hence, although not enforceable nor binding, this type of arrangement cannot fully replace treaties but can nevertheless be effective in terms of reputation and, at business level, competitive advantage.
At company level we can illustrate these advantages as follows:
- -
SDG compliance has proven to be a factor of competitive advantage and has been confirmed in different sectors such as agriculture (Buranasari et al., 2024)
- -
Similar to practices with the standard from the International Organization for Standardization e.g., ISO 9000a, government procurement agencies can include proof of SDG compliance in their tender documents (Dick, 2000).
Following progress catalyzed via the emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), then Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) requirements, both SDGs and ISO rules are also now playing an integral role in terrestrial business and company reputation. All these instruments designed to guide commercial activities towards responsible practices laid foundations for a similar set of soft laws like the CDGs to find a central role and impact the future of space exploration activities.
This aspect is stressed here to introduce a proposal to initiate “development goals for space exploration”, hereafter labelled as the Cosmic Development Goals (CDGs).
3 Discussion on SDG18
As mentioned before, the recent involvement of space entrepreneurs in exploration programs and the trend towards increasing PPP approaches has raised considerable concerns about space sustainability, adding to the work of visionary authors who pointed out the challenges for sustainable space development (Rockström et al., 2009). Decades of efforts in international fora on space safety, space traffic management, space debris mitigation, space sustainability and environmental protection of certain orbital slots such as Geostationary Orbit (GEO) since the 1980s and Low Earth Orbit (LEO) more recently led to the emergence of soft laws in the form of recommendations, guidelines, voluntary instruments and industrial standards to safeguard space operations and sustain the space economy. Seeds of a space sustainability regime emerged since the 1990s from recommendations and guidelines at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU, 1993), at the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC, 2025), at the United Nations Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space with Space Debris Mitigation and Long-Term Sustainability guidelines (UN, 2007; UN, 2019) at the International Standardization Organization and space operator associations and consortia providing their own voluntary sets of agreements on best practices. These instruments and agreements contribute to safeguard space operations, the spaceflight environment and its participants, and to sustain the space economy (Trur, 2021; Oltrogge and Christensen, 2020).
Fundamental in this context is the discussion about the Earth-Space connection, which basically questions whether a sustainable environment on earth can be reached without considering a sustainable space environment to support and reinforce it. This led some authors to reflect on the need to add another goal for space sustainability to the existing 17 SDGs, proposing the space-oriented SDG18 (Galli and Losch, 2019). This approach has been supported by several authors, emphasizing that the UN Agenda 2030 SDGs cannot be reached without the space component, otherwise known as the “space sustainability paradox” (Wilson and Vasile, 2023). This reasoning has been reinforced by labeling SDG18 as a sustainable goal reinforcing peaceful, inclusive exploration and utilization of space (Cernev et al., 2024).
A proposal for a potential 18
thSDG followed these efforts, including sub-elements in the SDG spirit, as mentioned below developed in order to (
Losch et al., 2024):
Reduce space debris.
Integrate long-term sustainability measures into national policies.
Increase scientific knowledge, to support sustainable exploration and use of outer space.
Improve education and awareness-raising and promote international cooperation in support of the long-term sustainability of outer space.
Implement international space traffic management and coordination.
Universal adoption of COPUOS space law
Safeguard a pristine night sky.
Yet these efforts have lacked sufficient support. The complexity of addressing all the aspects for which space missions support sustainability on earth calls for a different approach when considering outer space. These goals need to be adapted to the stellar environment while also contributing to society and economy back on earth, which the current proposal for “development goals for space exploration” addresses. These proposed cosmic goals help fill gaps that one single space-focused SDG like SDG 18 cannot fully capture.
4 Proposal for cosmic development goals (CDGs)
As noted before, the aforementioned 18th SDG proposal has undoubtedly a lot of merit and is an important asset for reaching a more sustainable space policy. There are, however, a few issues.
First of all, there is a completely different rationale between both. While SDGs are looking backward in time in the history of our civilization, they were meant to remedy past discrepancies, CDGs are forward looking and seek to prevent the emergence of similar issues in the future, all the while taking stock of progresses and lessons learned from sustainable development efforts on earth.
Secondly, governance, monitoring and evaluation have proven to be key for the success of SDGs and are now well established. Building from this experience, the proposed CDGs will require different or adapted institutions, so as to carry governance via space-dedicated competent authorities.
Thirdly, SDGs can be based upon present data points (like illiteracy rates, poverty indices) in order to set improvement objectives. Such data elements are not yet available for CDGs and therefore will be based upon expected targets.
Fourthly, a new generation of “astropreneurs” (a term introduced by A. C. Clarke) has emerged. The term “astropreneurs” refers here to entrepreneurs which are creating added value in the outer space sector by financing their own projects (Gonzalez, 2023), having visions which are independent from the traditional space entrepreneurs and from government objectives.
Taking this into account, a set of eight CDGs have been developed in a separate exercise than the one resulting in the SDGs. This is a complementary approach adapted for humanity’s expansion into deep space, building from the foundations of both the space regime and the sustainable development regimes.
These eight proposed Cosmic Development Goals (CDGs) are mentioned below (
ISU, 2025):
CDG1: Ensuring the health and safety of all participants and humanity in general.
CDG2: Establishing space as a collaborative and cooperative domain to ensure international partnership, open knowledge, and inclusive capacity building.
CDG3: Promoting responsible and sustainable space exploration by preventing contamination, regulating planetary modification, and reducing orbital debris.
CDG4: Establishing responsible practices of space research and technology development through ethical, safe, and sustainable norms for all space actors.
CDG5: Synergizing SHARE (Society, Heritage, Awareness, Representation and Equity) with space activities to ensure that exploration, policy, and innovation reflect our collective humanity, honor diverse legacies and actively dismantle systemic inequities.
CDG6: Building an inclusive and resilient global space economy for the benefit of humankind.
CDG7: Preserving the use of space for peaceful purposes.
CDG8: Ensuring open access to space resources by preventing monopolization and enhancing responsible behavior through a milestone-based system.
The Eight Cosmic Development Goals are graphically represented in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
In addition to these eight goals, performance measurements were thought of in the spirit of numerous successful experiences in monitoring and evaluation for SDGs. They are referred to as sub-goals and detailed in the aforementioned report (ISU, 2025).
Although the essence of this short article was in the first place to introduce the rationale for CDGs, their implementation will face a number of challenges. Firstly, the governance of these objectives needs to be established under a specific forum and set of rules, which means finding a host organization willing to take up that responsibility. A second challenge will be the fact that monitoring will be more complex than for terrestrial endeavors with the caveat that, as for other soft law regulations, there is no enforceability. Yet, as shown with companies’ adherence to ISO standards and SDGs, following sustainable norms and voluntarily implementing them increased many companies’ reputation and overall market values. In terms of guidance for implementation and impact, the SDGs are monitored at the United Nations level by several agencies, namely, trade and statistics (UNCTAD, 2019; UNSD, 2026), ITU for education training for digital literacy and access (ITU, 2024), UNESCO for SDG 4 culture and education (UNESCO, 2026). The OECD also provides data on development progress indicators. All these trends informed CDGs implementation suggestions towards norm building and integration, which are steering companies towards reputation targets thanks to sustainable norm adherence rather than through hard law regulatory constraints. Is it time for UNCOPUOS to elaborate its own indicators and monitoring role for assessing the impact of sustainable space development to monitor CDGs implementations based upon the experiences of these other UN bodies? Could the other UN space governing body of ITU be a better or complementary fit given its current experience with SDGs and long history of support to sustainable space operations. Or should an inter-agency working group gathering space agencies delegates of UNCOPUOS and ITU shape an external study group to shape CDGs implementing guidelines inspired by the success of the IADC group leading to space debris and sustainability governance guidelines?
5 Conclusion
As humanity is returning to the moon and establishing permanent planetary settlements by the end of this decade, there is a pressing need to ensure that these actions are accompanied by sound sustainability policies. The earth-oriented SDGs have been an excellent testbed for highlighting the value of soft law tools and for showing how to implement them. Space-oriented issues will nonetheless require a different, more future-oriented and preventive approach. The CDGs approach enables the prevention of past mistakes before humanity expands beyond earth thanks to globally shaped and sustainable policies, conducive to better practices. Also, whereas the SDGs grew out of the need of remedying to past unsustainable behaviors in economic and societal development, CDGs offer a chance for a more sustainable human civilizational development in outer space and thus to avoid a repetition of such discrepancies. CDGs as policy tools are also based upon lessons-learned from 7 decades of space governance, built upon shared human values, combined with lessons from sustainable development progress on earth. As humanity is embarking on its biggest adventure, it is high time to adapt space governance for this grand cosmic journey. The CDGs further consolidate the foundational space treaties’ core principles that ensured peaceful uses and exploration as complementary soft instruments and includes the new context and stakeholders of deep space missions, namely, the private sector and its increasing role and necessary sustainability aspects of these future missions and settlements. This short note is intended to introduce the basic concept of Cosmic Development Goals, hoping that it initiates a discussion on their possible implementation, in particular related to governance and monitoring.
Statements
Author contributions
WP: Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. AT: Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. The project is funded by the John Templeton Foundation, Grant No. 62772.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the John Templeton Foundation for funding the three-year research project “Cooperation for the Future of Space Exploration” at the International Space University, Strasbourg and the George Washington University, in Washington D.C., United States. The authors also want to acknowledge the students from the ISU Master class 2025’s Team Project “Cosmic Development Goals” for their contributions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
BuranasariB.LaiP.WooS.BipoonrungrojP. (2024). Impact of sustainable goal orientation on supply chain collaboration and sustained competitive advantage: evidence from the tea and coffee industry. Asian J. Shipp. Logist.40 (2), 284–299. 10.1108/MIP-07-2018-0298
2
CernevT.BlandJ.ZilgalvisG.KaleagasiB.de ZwartM.TzachorA.et al (2024). Assessing benefits and risks between the space economies and the sustainable development goals. Front. Space Technol.5, 1375830. 10.3389/frspt.2024.1375830
3
DickG. (2000). ISO 9000 certification benefits reality or myth?TQM Mag.12 (6), 365–371. 10.1108/09544780010351517
4
DioufG. (2019). Millennium development goals (MDG) and sustainable development goals (SDG) in social welfare. Int. J. Sci. Soc.1 (4), 17–24. 10.54783/ijsoc.v1i4.144
5
FeyJ.PeetersW. (2025). The changing economy of space applications and exploration: a catalyst for international cooperation?LSE Expert Anal.5/20251–14. Available online at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/publications/policybriefs/the-changing-economy-of-space-application-andexploration-a-catalyst-for-international-cooperation (Accessed March 11, 2026).
6
GalliA.LoschA. (2019). Beyond planetary protection. Life Sci. Space Res.23, 3–9. 10.1016/j.lssr.2019.02.005
7
GonzalezS. (2023). The astropreneurial Co-creation of the new space economy. Space Policy64 (2023), 101552. 10.1016/j.spacepol.2023.101552
8
IADC (2025). Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines. Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC-02-01. Available online at: https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2025/aac_105c_12025crp/aac_105c_12025crp_9_0_html/AC105_C1_2025_CRP09E.pdf (Accessed March 11, 2026).
9
ISU (2025). The Cosmic Development Goals. A Common Agenda for the Future of Space Policy. Illkirch, France: International Space University.
10
ITU (1993). Recommendation S.1003: Environmental protection of the geostationary-satellite orbit. Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union. Available online at: https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/s/R-REC-S.1003-0-199304-S!!PDF-E.pdf (Accessed March 11, 2026).
11
ITU (2024). The ITU ICT SDG Indicators. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union. Available online at: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/SDGs-ITU-ICT-indicators.aspx5.
12
LoschA.GalliA.SchildknechtT. (2024). History, concepts and challenges of proposing an 18th UN sustainable development goal related to space. Space Policy68 (2024), 101631. 10.1016/j.spacepol.2024.101631
13
Moon Village Association Global Expert Group on Sustainable Lunar Activities (GEGLSA) (2022). Recommended framework and key elements for peaceful and sustainable lunar activities. Available online at: https://moonvillageassociation.org/download/recommended-framework-and-key-elements-for-peaceful-and-sustainable-lunar-activities/.
14
MVA GEGLSA (2022). Recommended Framework and Key Elements for Peaceful and Sustainable Lunar Activities. Moon Village Association Global Expert Group on Sustainable Lunar Activities. Available online at: https://moonvillageassociation.org/download/recommended-framework-and-key-elements-for-peaceful-andsustainable-lunar-activities/ (Accessed April 13, 2026).
15
NASA. (2025). The Artemis Accords: Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes. Washington DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Available online at: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemisaccords/img/Artemis-Accords-signed-13Oct2020.pdf (Accessed April 13, 2026).
16
OltroggeD.ChristensenI. (2020). Space governance in the new space era. J. Space Saf. Eng.7 (3), 432–438. 10.1016/j.jsse.2020.06.003
17
PeetersW.EhrenfreundP. (2025). Charting the future of space: a collaborative vision for innovative commercial partnerships and sustainable space exploration. New Space13 (1), 7–21. 10.1089/space.2024.0041
18
RockströmJ.SteffenW.NooneK.PerssonA.ChapinF. S.LambinE. F.et al (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature461, 472–475. 10.1038/461472a
19
SarojB.KoloA. (2024). “Soft law in international investment law,” in Buid Doctoral Research Conference 2023. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering. Editors Al MarriK.MirF. A.DavidS. A.Al-EmranM. (Cham: Springer), 473, 388–395. 10.1007/978-3-031-56121-4_36
20
TrurA. (2021). Space Sustainability Governance and the Space Debris Case: A Study of Epistemic Communities’ Influences over International Policy Coordination. Tokyo, Japan: National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies GRIPS. Available online at: https://grips.repo.nii.ac.jp/records/1852 (Accessed March 11, 2026).
21
UN (1967). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. New York, NY: United Nations. Available online at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html (Accessed March 11, 2026).
22
UN (1979). Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. New York, NY: United Nations. Available online at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/moon-agreement.html (Accessed March 11, 2026).
23
UN (2007). Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. New York, NY: United Nations. Available online at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/62/20(supp) (Accessed March 11, 2026).
24
UN (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015 – Measure what We Treasure: Sustainable Data for Sustainable Development. New York, NY: United Nations. Available online at: https://www.undp.org/publications/millennium-development-goals-report-2015 (Accessed March 11, 2026).
25
UN (2016). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York, NY: United Nations. Available online at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (Accessed March 11, 2026).
26
UN (2019). Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities Developed by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space A/74/20, 21 June 2019. New York, NY: United Nations. Available online at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/74/20 (Accessed March 19, 2026).
27
UNCTAD (2019). United nations trade and development. Available online at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/74/20.
28
UNESCO (2026). Global education monitoring report. Available online at: https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/monitoring-sdg4.
29
UNSD (2026). United Nations Statistics Division. New York: United Nations. Available online at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/.
30
WilsonA. R.VasileM. (2023). The space sustainability paradox. J. Clean. Prod.423 (2023), 138869. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138869
Summary
Keywords
cosmic development goals, ethics, governance, society, space exploration, sustainability, sustainable development goals, CDG
Citation
Peeters W and Trur A (2026) The need for Cosmic Development Goals for space exploration. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 13:1836909. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2026.1836909
Received
23 March 2026
Revised
22 May 2026
Accepted
26 May 2026
Published
23 June 2026
Volume
13 - 2026
Edited by
Stavro Ivanovski, National Institute of Astrophysics (INAF), Italy
Reviewed by
Hercules Oliveira, Federal Technological University of Paraná, Brazil
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Peeters and Trur.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: A. Trur, aurelie.trur@community.isunet.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.