You might wish to get a degree in Biology and do a deep study of NASA's space life science programs, and some work in epidemiology before engaging in such a discussion. You toss terms around with only partial understanding of what they mean in the collective context you attempt to use them in.

I have known John Rummel personally for 15 years. His expertise is beyond repute. Take issue with his words if you wish - but he has the job of PP at NASA - not you.

This is why I am no longer bothering to take on Barry (and wonder why I am even bothering making this post). As far as this debate goes - the old zen koan applies: those that speak don't know - those who know don't speak.

I, as a biologist with more than 15 years of personal involvement with NASA's various life science programs at NASA HQ and is field centers, including the management of the peer review of its research, feel that Zubrin and DiGregorio are both utterly ignorant of the basic principles of biology underlying the claims they make. As such the statements they make are also utterly wrong. There public pronouncements, when given prominence in the media, serve only to misinform and, in the case of people who do not have a full grasp of these issues, to inflame.

I am not sure which tires and annoys me more - apologists for DiGregorio - or apologists for Zubrin. Their words should be allowed to stand for themselves with out subsequent interpretation, parsing, and re-phrasing by others.

I understand that you want to put up an anti-ICAMSR website. While your interest in informing people of the folly of listening to arm waving chicken littles like DiGregorio is certainly worthy of appreciation, such a website would fall far short of any potential value if it were to ignore the equally ignorant comments made by the likes of Zubrin.