And the reason is political correctness rather than science. This is precisely why the bunk BD spouts should be countered. Overhyping the risk raises public fears unrealistically and can result in decisions being made based on misinformed public opinion rather than informed expert opinion.

From the article:

"Political correctness

Central to the ability of returning samples from Mars is the issue of planetary protection, said Pascal Lee, a research scientist at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California. "It doesn’t mean it’s an actual risk. What it means is that it’s an issue."

"The issue is to what extent are we contaminating Mars if we were to send humans there? To what extent is Mars going to contaminate the Earth, and particularly humans, if we brought back samples from Mars, fresh out of the Mars incubator, so to speak?," Lee said.

Lee said that those individuals who dismiss these issues are not doing the science right. You cannot guarantee that Mars today is not an abode for life, and that life there would have no effect on human beings, he said.

"You can argue at length as to how likely it is. But at the end of the day, if you think about the potential of what’s really at stake, it’s humanity versus a microbe," Lee said.

Space station stopover?

Ultimately, Lee said, how we handle Mars samples will have relatively little to do with the actual risk that’s involved. "It will have to do with appeasing the public and public perception in particular," he said.

This being the case, the SETI Institute scientist said that any scheme of returning samples directly to the Earth is unlikely to be acceptable. A more politically correct scenario is first capturing the Mars samples via the shuttle, and then preprocessing or quarantining those materials aboard the International Space Station, Lee said.

Having the station double as an extraterrestrial receiving lab is not free of headaches, however."

It is a sad state of affairs when NASA's scientists are already willing to throw in the towel on what is technically feasible and realiable in favor of what is publically acceptable, all at a mere whisper of public disapproval from people who regularly misuse and misrepresent the data available. It is even more sad that certain space enthusiasts would rather flame people that disagree with them only moderately on risk levels than paint a realistic picture of the potential hazard.

Regards,
Mark