NASA is trying to find our where water is past and present. It is a basic requirement for life. Rather than repeat the billion dollar fumbling gambles of Viking NASA, it is taking a systematic approach. With the notable exception of Levin, most of the people on the Viking team realized that the results they initially considered positive did not qualitatively fit the profiles they expected. In trying to explain this they found more likely explanations in chemical processes that were unexpected. This drove them to conclude it was important to better understand the geological and chemical context of environments where they would search for life in the future. They have a very systematic plan for narrowing down the places on Mars where they think finding evidence life on Mars past or present will be most likely. There is nothing wrong with this strategy except that it will take time. If they find life by this method we will understand far more about it than simply that it exists.

Beagle 2 has more in common with a get rich guick scheme than a rigorous scientific program. It is gambling that life in Mars is common and that all it has to do is dig down a little to find life. They may be right and in the process scoop NASA big time and make it look stoggy and a little silly. Some successes come from luck and some from hard work. Systematic hard work pays off more often, but it costs a lot more time, effort and often money. You can debate the relative merits of the approaches, but you can not legitimately claim NASA is not looking for life because it chooses a more systematic approach than Beagle 2.

Regards,
Mark