http://www.planetary.org/html/news/opinions/zubrinresponse.html

As noted by Zubrin. None of the experts addressed key issues relative to this issue being overblown by certain notarious scare-mongers. Zubrin's stance is streaching the low risk consensus held by most scientists, but all the replies ignored the danger of psuedo scientists such as you blowing the low risk far out of proportion in attempt to generate a Cassini like panic. It appears to me that NASA is being overly cautious in order to avoid a similar uproar.

You can find the original article and links to all three replies at
http://www.planetary.org/html/news/opinions/nothreat.html

While the first two seemed to focus on defending their turf the final one actually admitted Zubrins conclusions were in line with expert reviews of the issue. It simply objected to Zubrin overlooking some types of risk most notably ecological upset.

http://www.planetary.org/html/news/opinions/safescience.html

"Still, the difficulty with debating Zubrin in this case is that occasionally he says something true and/or believable, nearly persuading the reader to accept the rest of his argument. I (and most biologists) would (and do) agree with some of his statements. For example, the likelihood of life on Mars is small, and the likelihood of more advanced, mammalian-like life is even smaller. Moreover, the likelihood that a Mars organism pathogenic to Earth life exists and that, if it did, it could compete with highly adapted and competitive life on Earth is very small. None of this is new-it is comprehensively reviewed and discussed (with proper citations) in a National Research Council report ("Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations," Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997). This report, produced by actual experts, visits virtually all of the issues brought up by Zubrin and is, in fact, in general agreement with many of his statements. The problem is that Zubrin selectively ignores other facts and takes things out of context. For example, the following cannot be ignored:" (read the link for details)

I find the lack of similar statements by Rummel and Race to be a glaring lack of full disclosure resulting in a very misleading replies. It does not surprise me that Rummel is the one you chose to provide a link to rather than full disclosure of both Zubrin's articles and the other rebuttals. Psuedoscientists seldom wish to survey all the data. Some even write books telling only one side of a scientific debate (usually the loosing one).

All three replies seem to indicate a push for Zubrin to butt out and let experts deal with the issue. I think that is good advice and should certainly apply to the likes of you as well although all taxpayers have a right to demand both safe operations by the government and responsible spending on the part of the government. You represent the safety side and Zubrin represents the cost effective side. The point is neither of you is as well suited to judging the relative risks as the people that have already been involved with this project both inside and out of NASA.

I talked to a well known extremophile researcher about this issue at the last MS convention and she thinks Robert is too under concerned. She criticized Robert as downplaying the potential risk at one of the plenary sessions. She thinks the evidence points towards Martian life being able to be transported to Earth by Martian meteorites but is not quite conclusive because it deals mostly with individual sterilizing factors and not the combination of all those present. She did agree that if we knew microbes could survive being transported from Mars to Earth in meteorites then this whole issue would be pretty much moot beyond the sample integrity standpoint. That issue was pretty much avoided in all the replies to Robert linked above as noted in Zubrin's reply. Given her chosen field she also shows much more concern for potential harm to any microbes which may be present on Mars than Robert. Many leading members of the MS feel Martian life if found should hold a priority equal or higher than human colonization particularly if DNA indicates a separate origin.

As always the best place for those interested in this subject to start is
"Mars Sample Return Issues and Recommendations" at http://www.nas.edu/ssb/mrsrmenu.html

Another Barry buster (because he distorts it so badly) is
"The Quarantine and Certification of Mars Samples" at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309075718/html/index.html (given earlier)

Regards,
Mark