Talk:Mars sample-return mission/Archive 3

Editing to remove the word Early etc
Warren, especially as the editor proposing deletion, please discuss any changes here first and ask for clarification plus also check what I'm planning to do with the article, especially as it is mid edit. I know you have problems with the word Early. I removed the word entirely from the version in my user space. Am not so sure if that is the best solution though this way around and am happy to discuss, but please don't just delete occurrences of the word early in the text without discussion.

I'm going to revert to the version before your edits and add cn templates. Adding tags to it is absolutely fine cn or any other tags to suggest or request improvement or point out flaws, but for editing, I suggest its best to discuss here first, especially as the editor proposing deletionRobert Walker (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See, I knew you would do that. This is your modus operandi. You cannot stand other people editing your WP:OWN articles. All you want from other editors is to do fact checking for you so you can go in and eliminate your stupid mistakes. Warren Platts (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren it is for you particularly as the editor proposing deletion that I suggest restraint in editing it right now, and please don't be surprised if I revert your edits.


 * Plus also even when there is no dispute, things like changing terminology throughout an article would normally be discussed on the talk page first. You might for instance mention it as a proposal on the talk page, then wait a few days, and if no-one responds you do a bold edit and change it. Then if someone reverts your bold edit you go back to the talk page and ask them to discuss it. That's not a requirement but it is the recommended way of doing it. And if you do a bold edit like that without discussing, unless it is really obviously an improvement, for sure you can expect it to be reverted in an article with other editors actively editing it or watching it.


 * And the thing is - no urgency. Probably if you leave us out, and anyone who comes here through the AfD discussion, half a dozen people see this page a day if that, I imagine and most of those probably got here by mistake. I don't think it is going to be a high profile wikipedia article, at least in near future, except perhaps occasionally when back contamination issues hit the headlines for one reason or another. Probably get more readers if a MSR is actually proposed and imminent. But as you said that's not likely for some time, so it is neither here nor there what the article is like for a week or so. Robert Walker (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Zubrin quote taken out of context
In subsection "Vigorous study of the Mars surface instead of a sample return" Zubrin is quoted as supporting more in situ research instead of MSR. Placing it in the "More in situ research as an alternative to MSR" section grossly misrepresents his position. If he opposes robotic MSR, it's only because he would rather have crewed MSR. And this is just a tip of the iceberg. I could go through section by section. This small section is merely typical of the entire article. Warren Platts (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, the point there is that he thinks that right now, a series of Curiosity class missions to Mars is a better return on investment than a MSR from Mars to Earth. He thinks a MSR is not required prior to human landing on Mars while the official NASA / ESA view is, as far as I remember, that it is a necessary first step before a human landing on Mars.


 * As you know my own view is that a human landing is not appropriate at present due to forward contamination.


 * Whatever the views though saying too much about human landings on Mars goes outside the scope of this article but you are right that I should make it clear that that is how he understands it. I think though that the last quote makes it very clear that that is his view, and I chose it for that reason. However can point it out in the sentence before introducing it in case the reader misses it somehow. This is the quote I used:


 * Also would probably be clearer to split this into two sections, Zubrin's view and Dirk Schulze-Makuch's view to avoid getting them mixed up as the motivations are very different. But - I am in the middle of trying to catch up on some programming, am getting a bit behind on my programming and answering your replies here, they are very welcome do keep making these comments but - means I haven't got much time to work on this today. I think I'll postpone the rest of the editing of the article until tomorrow so I can focus on the programming for the rest of today and the beginning of tomorrow. Needs a bit of concentrated careful thought to get some things right.


 * So please understand, that the current article is surely still very inadequate, do go on criticizing it and adding tags, but please be patient if I don't immediately fix the issues you find, more later. Robert Walker (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is you are twisting Zubrin's words to support your editorial position that much more in situ research be conducted before MSR can be allowed. The only alternative Zubrin wants is human MSR--and as soon as possible. A MUCH more riskier proposition of causing doomsday!! lol! Warren Platts (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * First hope you don't mind unindented your last comment because when you indent massively like that then before very long we end up having a conversation on the right side of the page with a big gap to the left.


 * Warren, it's clear that he doesn't want MSR as soon as possible, he says clearly that he thinks lots of Curiosity class missions are far better than a MSR and doesn't think an MSR is needed before colonization of Mars - because he doesn't think there is any risk for humans from Mars samples.


 * Evaluating the potential risk for humans is one reason that NASA wants an MSR before humans land there, I think (can't remember where I read that right now but pretty sure I saw it in one of the reports).


 * Yes he wants a human colonization as soon as possible, of course he does.


 * Also interestingly, he has put forward the possiblity of telerobotics before human colonization in his double Athena flyby mission - for the same reason as other telerobotics suggest it, because it gives a lot of good science return for much less cost than a human landing and he wants to have good science study of the surface before colonization.


 * I'll edit the section to make all this clearer. Was kind of obvious to me, but the reader may not be familiar with Zubrin's views and motivations so does no harm to spell it out in detail, good suggestion. I am not trying to twist his views to suggest that they are the same as those who are worried about back contamination, it is just an accident that the way I edited it didn't present his views clearly enough because I put them into the same section as a biologist with very different views. Will fix that. Not at all intended. Robert Walker (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just updated that section so you can see what it is like now. There are lots of other things to do on the article I know with your other comments and cns etc, will get started on those later, perhaps this evening, but thought it would help to do this one right now. Robert Walker (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Quarantine period extra possibility
I have just added this as a comment in this section (hidden comment in the wiki text for editors of the page):

Does anyone know of a source? I mention it in my science20 article but that is not a peer reviewed source, and I think probably not notable by criteria of wikipedia (as well as COI). Am surprised that no-one else has suggested it and feel surely someone must have but have searched before and not found a citation for it, if anyone knows one do say. Robert Walker (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you should cite your article. We already know about your conflict of interest. Your COI is not affected one way or the other if it's cited or not. Warren Platts (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, first yes I said it is a COI but really not quite a COI in that strict sense if you have a bias on a subject like this as everyone does. You also have a bias towards Zubrin's ideas on MSR if I understand you right and are not totally mainstream as you consider the official reports as exaggerating the risks. And Zubrin would probably regard everyone as biased towards scientific validity of BC risks except for himself. And the ICAMSR likewise would probably regard everyone as biased towards the idea of a safe return of MSR to earth without in situ studies.


 * So on a subject like this it is inevitable that any editor will have views that at least many others regard as biased. In that general sense then if you have one of the views well to one side or another on a debate you have a sort of COI, not sure what you call it, but it is a less specific thing than the COI for citing your own work, less problematic, more workable with.


 * The COI for citing my own work is because it is first, promotional of it, and second, I am not able to assess its notability in an objective way, and third, am unable to assign due weight to it in an objective way. All the same it is permitted to introduce citations to your own work or summarize it, even to do things like autobiography not totally ruled out. But the circumstances need to be clear that it is needed.


 * Here though some articles on science20 have become notable and can be cited, (see Science 2.0 I don't think that inclusion of an article on science20 is by itself enough to confer notability.


 * If another editor was to decide that it is enough to confer notability that is up to them but I certainly can't make that decision and don't personally think that it is enough either. Robert Walker (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you or another editor think it is notable enough to cite and want to add it in, I won't object. But won't do it myself, it is far too borderline to even consider doing it myself. Robert Walker (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've found a source for an indefinite quarantine here http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0QY0U6qJKFUC&pg=PA440&lpg=PA440&dq=mars+sample+return+indefinite+human+quarantine&source=bl&ots=d3oIEZ47vO&sig=D5JsEq23sWdgbONUbfXdzfvI7oo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Xi7EUdeuHoi20QWt84GYAQ&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=mars%20sample%20return%20indefinite%20human%20quarantine&f=false




 * BTW very similar to my POV - except, I'd have the astronauts on Mars in orbit around the colony exploring it via telepresence and using Phobos or Deimos for ISRU. And they could live in orbit and raise families there etc. just as for the colonists on the ground. For me, seems a much more interesting and desirable life to live in orbit around Mars and explore via telepresence than to be stuck on the surface with the extra cold, and need to wear spacesuits to go out, and the dust storms. If I were to put my POV into the article, which I can't, would be right next to the Robert Zubrin one, but with the change that at the end of the in situ work, I'd have colonization in Mars orbit rather than on the surface. Otherwise exactly the same and eventually return large quantities for MSR once it is thoroughly understood and if no issues turn up, but if issues do turn up - if they turn up after return of samples to the orbital colony, might need indefinite quarantine as i Jeffrey Kargel's idea in the quoe above. It is of course a very POV centric book, but that's no problem here.Robert Walker (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also found an interesting POV here, another motivation for in situ study before sample return: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01p3.html


 * Makes sense to me, if you examined the samples and found that there were no life-like structures on it in an optical and electronic microscope and no trace of any biosignatures using e.g. the biosignatures exomars approach, and no reaction to labelled release nutrient experiments and no isotope ratio type things suggesting life or anything - well that would surely reduce the probability of contamination down enormously. Personally I don't expect to get negative results like that especially from the most "intersting" samples e.g. if sub-soil brines etc. But if we did I personally would be much reassured about the contamination risks of MSR. If you got anomalies though that were not yet understood, like the Viking results say, then I'd say they need to be followed up because Martian life could be very different from Earth life and so an anomaly must be understood before you can say it is for sure non life. This is whole para. is of course just my personal comment for the talk page - not for the article.


 * Can only put what he says in the quote. But I think the Harold Klein quotation would be usefully included Robert Walker (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * HAHAHA!! You crack me up Robert. You really cannot control yourself when it comes to cherrypicking. From the same article:


 * Why not include that? Because it shows your entire theory is based on a biological misconception? Warren Platts (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Or this?

Warren Platts (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, it is not my theory. Nowhere in the article do I present any theories of my own. It is the view of the ESF and NRC. I can add these, yes, probably after the Ledeberg quote as an example of another POV on the matter. It is definitely not the mainstream view, is a minority view, at least of the research I have read so far, but deserves mention yes. But where did you find these quotes? I can't find them right now, and don't remember reading them. Doesn't seem to be the article, search of the text for "immune" returns no matches. If it is from the book, I haven't read the entire book - it is an online searchable one but would have to buy it to read it. I found it by searching for an author that recommends or discusses indefinite quarantine. Also a google search for the exact text doesn't turn up either of your quotes. Robert Walker (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Found your second quote though. Yes - okay - but you need the context, they go on to say that we could be proven wrong. So not appropriate to present it as a view totally against the idea of BC risk.


 * Other quotes from the page - the section discussiong Di Gregorio continues




 * and the other section you quote concludes, and also conclusion of the entire article:




 * So which of us is doing the cherry picking? Both, I would suggest, or rather neither since the word suggests intention and I'm sure neither of us is doing it intentionally. The particular quote I picked out though about Harold Klein can be attributed to him. These other quotes would need to be attributed to the author of the article Bruce Moomaw as he doesn't attribute them to anyone else and so would need to be summarized in context try to summarize the entire article down to a few sentences to give his POV. Or could summarize one of the sections e.g. the one about not needing to quarantine amber - but the whole part of that, not just the part of that section that you picked out. Robert Walker (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is "Early" included in the article title???
I see you (although you say "we") define "early" "as a sample return that is made with samples that are imperfectly known." The dictionary definition of "early" is "occurring in the near future". Your definition doesn't doesn't have anything to do with the dictionary definition. It appears you are inventing a new meaning. You don't have a source for that do you? Warren Platts (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes this is an old discussion. Actually it wasn't my idea to define early. I did it by request of another editor of the page who said the article should define the word early.Robert Walker (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer the question: Why is "early" in the title of the article? And why do you bury your idiosyncratic "definition" more than halfway through the article? Shouldn't it be in the lede? Warren Platts (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It was there, but I removed it because of your objections and am using the latest version of the intro para but older versions of the rest of the text, it is mid edit. Not sure what final version will look like yet. Robert Walker (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is reasonable to do something like this when the only reason for doing it is to help organize the material and aid the reader in understanding it. You claimed before that "early" means "too early" and so defining anything at all as "early" baises the reader against it. But in my view early is a neutral word especially since some Mars missions are described as "early" in a non perjorative way. Robert Walker (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, don't you mean "unsafe" by "early". If you substitute "unsafe" for "early" everywhere, I don't see how it changes the meaning, and it is a lot more clear and doesn't require the invention of new definitions. Shall I change it for you? Warren Platts (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No I don't mean that. Plus the whole thing is that it is to do with the timing of the MSR. So to do that removes that whole aspect that it is the timing is the thing under discussion whether to do the MSR before the in situ research, orbital biohazard testing etc, or the other way around. And definitely don't want to prejudge the reader by suggesting that doing a MSR before the in situ research etc is unsafe. That is one of the main tings up for debate, whether it is unsafe or not. The article shouldn't suggest that it is unsafe, just put forward the different POVs on whether it is safe or not. Shouldn't say it is safe either. Includes also Zubrin's view that if you returned a MS even today and even not to a biohazard laboratory at all, it would be safe, definitely a minority view. So Early definitely shouldn't prejudge it. Zubrin's view would be that an early, immediate SR is safe. And do you see - "early" in that sentence is neutral. He could easily say that and no-one would say he is contradicting himself. It is only because you are attributing the word "early" to my voice that you see it as biased, if you can take the POV of a reader who doesn't know who edited the article or their biases, and so doesn't have their perception of the meaning of the words coloured by that, would the word "early" have any negative connotation at all? Robert Walker (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, you don't define "early" with reference to time at all. You define it as a sample that has been "imperfectly" studied, implying that only samples that have been perfectly studied are not "early". At any rate, "early" is unsourced. It is a word you coined for the purpose of your editorial rant. On those grounds alone, the article should be deleted. Warren Platts (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In the version in my user space I solved it by rewriting it to completely remove the word early from the page. That can be done. But I am concerned that it somewhat reduces the clarity of the writing and defining "early" just for purposes of clear easy to read text seems to me to be a better solution. At any rate I only see it as a discussion on how best to present it clearly and assure you there is absolutely no attempt intended to influence the judgement of the reader of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, you say the mainstream view is that they want "early" MSR. That's your way of saying that the mainstream POV is unsafe. This article should be DELETED therefore. Warren Platts (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As for article title, various other suggestions were made including "criticism" etc but you vetoed them all. And the titles you suggested in place gave the impression that there was no discussion or debate on the matter at all and so were inappropriate IMHO. Basically the titles you suggested promoted Zubrin's minority view.Robert Walker (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * HAHAHA!! That's a good one Robert. You vetoed the suggestion "Mars sample return back contamination" as a title because it is too neutral for you. You couldn't stand it. Warren Platts (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course I vetoed it. Doesn't suggest that it is a matter of any debate or criticism at all. Not a suitable title for an article that is about a matter of controversy in my view. For that matter it is rather confusing when you think about it as it sort of implies it would cause back contamination. You would have to call it "Methods for eliminating Mars sample return back contamination" - but that's not the article I want to write. It would be possible to write such an article, simply go through the risk mitigation measures of the official policy and ignore all the other POVs on the matter, or give them just brief mention.


 * My problem with any such title is that it suggests that there is no crticism or dispute or even need for public debate at an international level, as if it is just a matter that can be left to the scientists to sort it out for themselves. And that is clearly not true and misleading. I'm not saying intentionally misleading, just saying it doesn't convey the subject matter well.


 * But don't need to be too hung up on titles. These can be changed later if someone finds a better tite. Robert Walker (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You also vetoed "Safety of Mars sample return mission"--could you please explain again why that's too neutral. I couldn't understand the first time... Warren Platts (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it not obvious? Because it looks like it is an article that talks about why the mission is safe, and most people will say "so what of course it is safe" if they haven't heard about BC, and not understand the point in such an article. What's more many of the concerns aren't about safety but about cost and low science return of an early MSR and I think those are all part of the debate and it shouldn't just focus on safety as if the science return costs are irrelevant to the safety debate as they are intricately related. Robert Walker (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And since the official views also have concerns about a too early MSR and recommend at least 12 years of planning, development and testing before we are ready to receive an MSR then I think concerns about an early MSR can be considered a reasonably neutral title. Only Zubrin of those mentioned so far has no concerns about an early MSR when the word is taken in its broad sense of early as in soon like e.g. at the earliest opportunity Robert Walker (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * More outright lies. No one recommends at least 12 years. Also you are inventing official views that do not exist. There are no official views about "a too early" MSR. That is your invention. You are good at that. So I think that handle of yours "Robert the Inventor" is quite appropriate. The official view is that MSR as currently conceived is safe. You are inventing straw men to raise awareness of your strange opinions. Warren Platts (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The twelve years figure comes from this source: http://mepag.nasa.gov/reports/iMARS_FinalReport.pdf It is especially useful as it has a total timetable with a break down year by year of what happens in each of those 12 years.


 * The ones that say shorter periods are talking about the time before launch. You add an extra couple of years between launch and the sample return, depending on the mission (presumably if pre-cached and also returned to orbit and you just launch a mission to collect the orbiting capsule, then a fair bit shorter than two years to return it). I'm not sure why the official ones count time until launch for getting the facility ready rather than time until return of the sample. Maybe so that the MSR mission launch can be delayed if problems turn up in the receiving facility?? Also haven't seen any recent detailed break down so relying on older papers there just because I haven't found a recent detailed one, most seem to just depend on the earlier figures and I think this detailed study might well be the original source of many of the recommendations in the later reports.


 * You keep accusing me of lying, I just want to say, I have not said anythingt intentionally isleading in this discussion. Mistakes yes, but mistakes aren't lies. Robert Walker (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Shall we call it intentional misrepresentation instead? Your word twistage is intentional. You'll take a fact like the NASA MSR is going to be a long-term project that will take at least 12 years to undertake, and then say that's because they "have concerns about too early of an MSR". That is a lie. Sorry. There's no polite way to put it. Warren Platts (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to blanket change of "early" to "unsafe" throughout
I think that would add a lot of clarity to the article. Right now, it's really unclear what "early" even means, since you use it contradictory senses: E.g., NASA on the one hand is against early return since they think they need 12 years to pull it off, but on the other hand, they are advocates of early return since they don't care about obtaining perfect knowledge of the sample first. Warren Platts (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am giving it some thought, will try to come up with a good solution to this.


 * Yes definitely a good point that on the one hand NASA is against early return and yet on the other hand they are in favour of it, depending how you define "Early" - excellent point.Robert Walker (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See, you are not only presenting WP:OR, you are doing OR in Wikipedia, using other editors to help out your researches no doubt because you can't find anyone else to bounce your crazy ideas against. Warren Platts (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * But a blanket change of it to "unsafe" I think would be even more confusing, given that e.g. Robert Zubrin is saying that an early return no matter how early is safe, and also that it needs to be made clear throughout the article that the main variation in views is on the timing - that no-one is 100% against MSR, that all of them anticipate a MSR eventually though in some cases post human colonization or post telerobotic exploration of the surface.


 * So yes there is something here to be addressed, but a simple search and replace type change won't fix it IMO, needs more thought. In my user space version I came up with one solution which is just to keep re-using the words "before a detailed examination" instead of "early" - but I am not 100% happy with that either because it is a little clumsy to keep saying  "before a detailed examination" many times, so I also end up using the word "early" anyway to avoid over verbose language - but now without a definition, it is no longer clear what "early" means, taking you back to the situation that the earlier editor rightly criticized where reader will ask "what does early mean here". Here is my user space attempt, avoids early quite well through a lot of the article but with some loss of clarity I think, and still uses early later on. User:Robertinventor/Debate about scientific value of Mars sample return and methods to avert low probability existential risks


 * Also doesn't make it so clear that it is a timing issue if you try to remove the word "early" altogether.


 * So need something that does both if possible. The suggestion to replace early by "unsafe" doesn't quite work as a solution IMHO as you'd have to say things like "Robert Zubrin says that an unsafe MSR is safe" and you have no idea that it is a timing issue.


 * For that matter all the parties to the debate have different definitions of what is meant by an "unsafe return" and none of them advocate an unsafe return. Robert Walker (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh brother. Now you're really confusing me. So now you're saying that everybody agrees that that MSR is not unsafe? Then why are you wasting your time writing this article? Warren Platts (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course they do, no-one is going to advocate a course of action that they think will lead to extinction of humans or reduction of life prospects or even a small scale epidemic with a few deaths. The differing POVs are all to do with different estimates and perceptions of the risk depending on the different courses of action. So Zubrin is totally convinced that there is no possiblity of BC hazards at all so as far as he is concerned you are taking no risk and it is totally safe to return a sample even with no precautions at all if I understand right. While at the other extreme, the ICAMSR think it is likely enough so that there is a small chance of large scale effects, and think that the return to Earth method doesn't eliminate those enough. Sadly they don't give any numbers and nor do the NASA people or anyone in the debate. But presumably the ICAMSR would estimate the probability as far higher than NASA who in turn would estimate it as far higher than Zubrin who would estimate it as close to 0.


 * It's a bit like the Drake equation where some people look at it and think it is almost certain there are some ET civilizations out there and so is worth going to a lot of trouble to try to detect their radio or optical signals while others look at the same equation and same evidence and say that there is almost no chance of ET and they are wasting their time and money.


 * That's what makes it a debate. Does that make sense? It is rather unlike most of science as it is rare to have this sort of thing arise in mainstream science, but this is an area where there are both, many unknowns that have to be "best guesses" rather than facts, and also the matter is one with a potential severe outcome, which means you have to make a decision based on those best guesses, which you almost never have to do in science. Robert Walker (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thing that makes it a bit unusual is that it is something never done before, and a novel mission with novel challenges and possibilities of human error so you have varying views there about whether we can carry it off without error given that there is no experience of previous missions to go on that are anything like similar enough to rely on them. So again get very different perceptions of the level of risk involved in doing a new mission profile of this type. If we had had many previous sample returns from Mars and they were shown to work perfectly and shown after the event to have had no risk of escape would be a very different situation but of course for that to happen you need a first mission to be flawless and that is where the main risk happens, the first mission, for those concerned about it, plus all the stuff about quarantine period - how much does that matter? - and could it be a slowly maturing threat to an ecosystem that you don't spot for a long time (similar to quarantine period but for an entire ecosystem) Just unknowns on top of unknowns basically at this stage of our knowledge, you can argue that they lead to an almost 0 probability or you can argue that they lead to a tiny but significant probability and I don't think there is much chance of any objective way of deciding which of those is right at this stage that everyone will accept.. Robert Walker (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And finally another thing that makes it an unusual debate is the whole thing of existential risk. We aren't used to reasoning about them. Is a one in a billion chance of an existential risk one that is acceptable? Intuitively many might think that is okay, but when you reflect on it some more you can have second thoughts especially when you think about the potential future of humankind and its potential to affect humans everywhere worldwide. Or a one in a trillion? Or should we use the one in 10^18 chance so one in a quintillion, or indeed even larger number such as 1 in 10^24? And what is the probability from the natural contamination standard if we decide to use that as our standard? It would be really hard with no idea if there is Mars life or what it is like to really accurately estimate its chances of arriving on meteorite so though a good idea in principle at the moment not so very useful in practise. Robert Walker (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * lol! Wow, you're not even satisfied with Bostrom's far out 10^-18! Why stop at 10^-24 Robert? How about 10^-33 or 10^-100 or 10^-∞ ? After all, some physicists think we can tunnel into other universes, so future human history could be infinite with infinite numbers of humans. Also, you worry so much about existential risk--yet you ignore the existential risk of NOT doing MSR. The existential risk of a dinosaur-killer comet hitting us next year--and every single year after that--is on the order of 10^-8. Therefore, if postponing MSR postpones the day humans colonize Mars by one year or otherwise slows down progress in space exploration, the existential risk posed by MSR (~10-24) is swamped by the risk of not doing it. Warren Platts (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Section Risk assessment survey of microbiologists updated
I have updated this hopefully deals with Warren's concerns: Concerns for an early Mars sample return Robert Walker (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No improvement. Still cherrypicked to make the report look scary. Warren Platts (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In what way? If cherrypicked, then presumably there is stuff I left out that I should have included, that's what "cherrypicked" means. If I just picked out stuff that was representative of the article it is not cherry picked. Basically I just summarize every single statistic in the article that is to do with the MSR mission, of course left out the statistics that were to do with other missions. What did I leave out in my selection of quotes and material to paraphrase? One or two examples would e enough if there are several, give me an idea of things to look out for to understand your concerns. Robert Walker (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You left out the statistics and comments and stated qualifications that don't support your editorial opinion. Warren Platts (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you just give an example or couple of examples? I left out the last qualification which seemed the most important one, and so added that in, where she says




 * I thought that was the main significant qualification she made. Was there some other important qualification I should have put in? I did read the article not just skim it. But as someone with a veyr different POV you may have seen something as important in the article that I didn't notice, or thought of minor importance. Robert Walker (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously the MSR statistics are the main ones to get from it and I think I included every single statistic from that para. Plus main points from the intro and conclusion. I trimmed it down so of course left out some of the parss that just summarized stuff that you can tell from the statistics anyway. Short of copy / pasting the whole article in, you have to do some selection. I could trim it down further and omit the statements such as "a large majority disagreed" - I'll try that, maybe that will help. Robert Walker (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Have now removed all the editorial comments on the statistics such as "a large majority" - note - none of them were my own editorial comments but were editorial comments by the authors of the paper. But by removing all comments like that then that deals with the issue that I might be cherry picking in which of the original author's editorial comments I chose to paraphrase. Now it just presents the bare figures which are surely NPOV. Do you agree? Robert Walker (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not agree because you are literally leaving out figures that do not support your editorial slant/rant. Warren Platts (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but which figures do I leave out? Is a simple question. I thought I included all the figures on MSR in the paper but may have left something out. Please cite at least one number from the paper that I have left out, to support what you just said and help me understand it. Robert Walker (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You have not listed all the figures and qualifications, nor have you listed the most important ones. Any normal reader who goes to that source and reads it for themselves will be able to see that you have mined it for stuff that supports your POV while leaving out the stuff that does not. Warren Platts (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a general editorial strategy of yours: sneak in biased info under the radar, as it were, while leaving out the material that doesn't support your editorial slant. And then only include the contradictory info when other people call you on it. You can read Robert. You know exactly what parts I'm talking about, but you won't include them unless and until someone until someone explicitly points them out. Warren Platts (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, cite an actual number I omitted. Robert Walker (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Figure it out Robert. This is a test. Suffice it to say you have ignored content that does not support your POV. Warren Platts (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Re Zubrins argument (OR)
Moved to: User:Robertinventor/meteorites_from_Mars_possibilities_(OR) Robert Walker (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your OR. It only reinforces Zubrin's point. Warren Platts (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ? Robert Walker (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You point out that most Martian meteorites are igneous and from below the surface. However, it is well known on Earth that microbes exist within fractures in igneous rocks as far down as we have been able to drill so far. It is also well known that if Mars life exists at all, it most likely exists well below the surface. Therefore, it is precisely from the igneous Martian meteorites that originated from below the surface that we should expect to be the most likely to harbor Martian life. So you have reinforced Zubrin's argument. Good job sir! However, it's not OR, since the facts listed above are all sourceable. Warren Platts (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, see what you are saying, don't agree with your premiss about Mars life most likely to exist in cracks in igneous rocks near enough to surface for meteorites (of course does happen on Earth), or that it is unlikely to occur on the surface, to go into that in any detail is to take us far afield from present article, unless I find an independent citable source that makes the argument Robert Walker (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just wow. You just proved that you never took a geology class in your life, not even "Rocks for Jocks". Maybe you should stick to your areas of expertise--like microtonal music.... That's a very important subject Robert. You're time would be more productively spent on something you something about IMHO. Warren Platts (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't want to get into this in depth, just in brief: It used to be thought that it was impossible for a meteorite to send debris into space from Mars. Is now accepted it can but does it through a process that preferentially expels material from the surface into space. So deep down rocks won't get ejected. The surface layers of Mars are extremely arid (icy near poles but too cold for liquid water or brine) and unlikely to harbour life except close to geological hot spots (rare, unlikely to be hit by a meteorite) or the top 1-2cm of soil above the permafrost layer which may have thin layers of salty brine a few mm thick that may harbour microbial life (and some other similar just a few mms across surface micro-habitats) - or the possibility of surface lichen-like life utilizing high humidity of the air at Mars at certain hours of morning and evening. For some reason no meteorites have yet been found from Mars representing typical surface rocks as seen by the rovers - perhaps they come from somewhat deeper down, but can't be very deep down. For the meteorite impact see: http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/swaprock.html


 * Robert Walker (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? You're not even making sense anymore. Rovers have identified plenty of igneous material on Mars. It's not surprising that igneous rocks form most meteorites because they are much stronger than typical sedimentary rocks. FYI, igneous rocks can be found near the surface and even at the surface. Moreover, near the surface <> at the surface.... Warren Platts (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to see if your suggestion of them as rocks from deep down habitats on Mars could be got to work. Most likely the martian meteorites come from the surface, from areas not sampled yet, by the rovers. Looking at the wikipedia article on this then Martian_meteorite I see that actual surface origins are suggested for some of them, so I'm probably a bit out of date here in my understanding of Martian meteorites. Could say a lot more here - another of your "walls of text", but interesting as this debate is, probably better refrain from it, it is rather beside the point. Robert Walker (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

New approach to Early
I tried this out:

I have removed the CN tags etc as it no longer needs attribution, seems to me, is just an editorial way of helping to organize the page. Do add them back in if you feel it doesn't fix it. If this works I can start rewriting the rest of the page to match. Robert Walker (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are twisting Zubrin's views. He is not opposed to plans to build a sample receiving facility AFAIK. Also, the above doesn't change the fact that your special use of the word "early" is unsourced OR. Warren Platts (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replaced it with a direct quote from the transcript of the interview: "the stuff about back contamination simply has no scientific validity whatsoever". AFAIK that accurately summarizes his views on BC risks. Am of course ready to be corrected if I have misunderstood or he has changed is views since then. Robert Walker (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Does that entail that he is actively opposed to treating MSR samples, if it's ever launched, as potentially biohazardous? I didn't think so either. The receiving facility would be a SMALL part of the total cost of the mission. Warren Platts (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've seen it quoted as CORRECTION: 2009 figures, cost $121 million, not including an annual operational cost of $7 million for the receiving facilities see this article. (I thought I saw more recent figures but can't find them now). But the para. you are objecting to doesn't say anything about the receiving facilities, just is about his opinion that the MSR is uncategorically safe. After all if BC has no scientific validity, what purpose do the facilities provide (except of course preventing contamination by Earth organisms but that can be done in a normal clean room facility). Robert Walker (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The main purpose of the receiving facility is public relations and bureaucratic, since there is a virtually zero chance that it will contain the Andromeda Strain. Consider the fact that 70% of Americans don't believe in evolution. The scientifically uninformed are a large--and therefore important--constituency. Their "concerns" have to be taken into account as a matter of political necessity. So the receiving facility is really a cynical political compromise that allows MSR to proceed. Warren Platts (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Compare the European CERN to the American NASA and see the difference in how deal with the public's perceived notions of existential risks. In Europe, they don't take into account the concerns of the scientifically uninformed. CERN's approach to protests over the LHC were to get it up and running at full power ASAP in order to make it a fait accompli. NASA could try the same approach and simply bring back mars samples with no special precautions. Nothing would happen, and the "concerns" of scientifically uniformed people such as yourself would be shown to be phantoms of their imagination. However, because here in America, where we actually have formal public debates over these things because we actually care about the opinions of the scientifically uninformed, NASA will bend over backwards to make sure their "concerns" are addressed by building the receiving facility even though it's not strictly necessary. Warren Platts (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Update on the quote from the PPO that in situ research is not enough
This is for the section: Concerns for an early Mars sample return

Starting a new section as the last section discussion of this quote strayed far from the original point and is rather long.

I've found the original of the quote, is pretty clear that it is just a paraphrase of this 1995 report para: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5563&page=23

Compare

The second sentence isn't in this section but the first sentence is a direct quote so presumably this is the source for it (although not cited).

I've put the whole thing into my user space here, because hard to read on my netbook in its original format, may be useful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Scientific_methods_that_could_reduce_uncertainty

Just found, whole thing is also available as pdf here http://phylogenomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/report-mars-sample-return.pdf

The conclusion is:

It's an old study 1997, and it actually endorses "in situ" studies before a MSR, and part of the way through you have

So - I feel that the original text is taken a bit out of context and certainly isn't arguing in any broad brush way against in situ study of Mars as a way to reduce the probability significantly for contamination of a returned sample and indeed gives an example of a situation where in situ study could significantly reduce it.

So, unless someone can come up with another source that presents a detailed argument, I'm considering maybe this section in the article is best deleted as a result as it is not in fact the conclusion of a detailed argumenat against in situ observation as a way to reduce back contamination risk. Robert Walker (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section for now, just commented it out in the wiki source, as I feel it is not at all clear what the latest version is based on or what their argument is or indeed what exactly they mean by it as it doesn't define "significantly" - and the older version they use text from and paraphrase is definitely not a direct criticism of the utility of in situ studies to reduce back contamination risks significantly. Robert Walker (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. And there have been at least 9 successful in situ missions to Mars since 1993, with one more MSL rover in the works. And still any returned samples must be treated as biohazards. But by all means delete it Robert! After all, it doesn't support your POV!! Warren Platts (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And nice cherrypicking of quotes taken out of context! As usual.... You are good at that. Warren Platts (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can reinstate it if another source for the quote can be found that gives the argument and explains what they mean by "significant" in the quote. I mean of course, an actual exposition from the PPO themselves, or from whatever source they used. Robert Walker (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Gimme a break! It's very clear what they count as "significant"--enough to relax planetary protection requirements, which it's not. Your other quote was taken way out of context. It's ridiculous. All you're doing is proving that you are recalcitrant and will actively resist any efforts by other editors to render this article into NPOV. You're also ignoring the fact that it is a goal of MSR to bring back life alive cf. your Sagan quote. If they didn't want to bring back life while it's still alive, they could easily sterilize the sample prior to liftoff. Warren Platts (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for reducing size of article
I can reduce the size considerably by accurate and succint paraphrasing. However I feel the supporting material is needed for now to withstand Warren's challenges.

So, here is a suggestion. I can put the extended quotes and longer paraphrases into footnotes to assist editors in verification of the main text.

Have tried this throughout most of the article now. See for instance: Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return

Compare the older version, more than twice the size of the new version: Concerns for an early Mars sample return&oldid=561037205#ESF update on biohazard risks of MSR

I could put all these removed sections into the cite format recommended by N2e. But that is a lot to work to do - and perhaps some of them can simply be deleted once the material is verified and it is accepted that I have indeed paraphrased them accurately.

Please review and see if this is a good solution. I can probably reduce it further by doing more of the same. Robert Walker (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yah. It's over 15,000 words now. Here's an idea: why don't you merge it all into "your" ICAMSR article? Warren Platts (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is 9184 words. That is including the repetition of words in the contents section, but excluding all the words in the references which I think is fair given that that is how I trimmed its size by putting them into refs. Can be reduced further. Robert Walker (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yah. I was counting the 6,000 words of quotes you included in the references... But what's the worry? There's no length limit to Wikipedia articles. Are you concerned that you are giving WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe POV?!? Warren Platts (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Added separate risk mitigation sections
Concerns_for_an_early_Mars_sample_return etc Robert Walker (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do not attach my name to your talk sections, as it implies that I believe the article to be redeemable. I do not. Thanks. Warren Platts (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

New intro para may be a solution to the "Early" issue
I've put this new para into the intro which I think by setting the tone may help with the rest of the article. Also by phrasing it as "how early is too early?" as a question avoids the need to define early, and at the same time highlights the importance of the timing aspect.

There I believe I am summarizing Robert Zubrin's view correctly but it is just on basis of the cited interview transcript as I haven't yet been able to obtain a copy of the article he wrote on the subject.

Does this solve the vexed question of the use of the word "Early" in this article? Robert Walker (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for "early"? It's a yes or no question. Wall o' text not necessary. Warren Platts (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Article about concerns should be replaced by article about risk assessment and risk management
Although I'm interested about concerns about a Mars sample return, that's IMHO the wrong way to do it in an encyclopedia. Concerns are a subjective description and should be replaced by an objective one. Otherwise we have nothing else than some dark unbased fear shared by some people, better treated in an article about psychology. That cannot be the intent.

An objective description may be called "Risk Assessment and Management of an Early Mars Sample Return". Here a list of potential risks could be listed, together with probability estimates, if available, and the methods they are intended to be handled. The remaining unhandled risk may be compared with the risk imposed by Marsian asteroids, or other hazards in general. The article shouldn't be much longer than 200 lines, IMHO, with references, e.g. to the planetary protection policies of the space agencies.

A hint, that some people are concerned and should be taken serious in the sense of an ongoing constructive risk assessment might be added, but shouldn't be the central topic.

A different topic are cost estimates of an MSR in relation to the expected science benefit.


 * I agree, and would add that these topics can be adequately addressed in the main Mars sample return mission article. I have distilled this article down to about 500 words here: Text for MSR merger. I propose that it be merged over the BC section in the main article. Warren Platts (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's the problem I'm having getting this accepted. Scientists are used to the idea that all articles should be objective. But when they are articles about topics where there is a wide variety of views, the content of the article should not be objective, as there is no objective view on the subject. Instead you need to be objective in the way you describe those views and accurate in your attribution of those views, but you can't present a single unifying objective view on the whole subject..


 * That is how you do it in philosophy and ethics and in debates about matters of public concern. It makes many scientists uncomfortable as it is not the way you normally work in science. But it simply is impossible and inappropriate to write this article in an objective tone as if there were some single unifiying objective POV on the subject. Robert Walker (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_opponent

Robert Walker (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are wrong about philosophy and ethics not being written in an objective manner. Subjective philosophy is bad philosophy. Futhermore, there is no controversy: there is a fringe group populated by fringe scientists with a fringe POV. Should the article on Planet Earth discuss the Flat Earth Society's POV just because it exists?!? Must the article on evolution discuss Young Earth Creationism?!? Warren Platts (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Different philosophers have widely different views on the same topic. To try to fit that into the paradigm of scientific articles type objectivity doesn't work. To say more would be to go too far afield. But is clear this topic of a MSR has an ethical dimension and there is no known objective way known to assess ethical debates and come to an objective conclusion as to what the correct behaviour should be in a NPOV way not taking account of opinions of any individual humans involved.


 * On the science debate here, it involves attempts to estimate currently unknowable quantities in science. For these, the different views on the Fermi paradox are a better analogy of a well known debate where the science is basically unknowable at the current state of knowledge and technology. Robert Walker (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Therefore maximum BC risk is already assumed for a MSR. Anything beyond is called anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.131.137 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, that is obviously you, who else would attribute my concerns to anxiety, it is not something someone would say to me as a new anonymous user entering on this debate for the first time, there would be at least some build up to it. Why are you posting as an ip address, and answering yourself? Robert Walker (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL! Robert you have sunk to a new low. HAHA! You just can't believe people would disagree with your walls o' text. How awful! I feel your pain!!! ROTFLAMAO!!!!. FYI, my IP address is 72.160.9.181. Warren Platts (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Apologies, my mistake. BTW no need to share your IP address, just saying that you aren't the same person is fine. Robert Walker (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a new anonymous user, and I support Warren Platts' proposal. In contrast to Warren, I estimate the probability for underground Marsian life significantly above zero, but that doesn't affect security issues, because they are already considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.131.137 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies!! Please feel welcome here, and sorry for assuming you are Warren, must be confusing to be mistaken for someone else. Robert Walker (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem at all! I can understand your effort to rescue your article. But as a user of Wikipedia I'm interested in keeping it as objective and informative as possible. In this case, I think, one has to split concerns into two components, the first due to unknown risks that might exist objectively, the second consists of overestimated risks due to lack of individual knowledge and purely subjective and baseless anxiety. Lack of individual knowledge can be compensated by education. The subjective anxiety component will most likely not be MSR-specific, and should better be treated in a more general article in a psychological or group-psychological context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.138.147 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay first thanks for not taking it personally. Your point that concerns of BC are due to personal anxiety of the scientists concerned has apparently been raised by Zubrin. But I haven't yet read the original article.


 * But - I have no evidence at all that any of those concerned are personally anxious about it, either those writing about it, or the people I talk to. It is hard to be personally anxious about a risk that is very low probability. I am far more likely to be killed by lightning than by a MSR. If there was a MSR carried out tomorrow I am 99.9999% sure that absolutely nothing would happen to me as a result. It is just because that tiny chance of something going wrong is balanced by the huge numbers of people, billions in the world, and through all future generations of humans, that I am concerned. As was Carl Sagan. Do you think Carl Sagan was suffering from anxiety when he wrote about MSR in Cosmos and Cosmic Connection?


 * Unfortunately, we cannot ask Carl Sagan any more about his assessment of the proposed security level for a MSR. But Bill Nye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye), one of his students and successors at The Planetary Society strongly supports a MSR (http://news.yahoo.com/bill-nye-science-guy-urges-letters-obama-restore-192500547.html). How does that match with your assumption, that Carl Sagan would assess MSR security as too low?


 * I see lots of hints for ancient biological activity on Mars in the most recent MSL images, and a possible connection to life on Earth. It may even be possible, that part or all of life on Earth passed some period on Mars or even came into existence on Mars (in the sense of phylogenetics), transfered to Earth by asteroids. But the present Martian surface is highly hostile for life, much more even than the sterile Atacama desert surface. Nevertheless, there might exist some remnants of underground life on Mars. And from time to time, some organisms might be transported to Earth that way. A MSR might also transport organisms to Earth, but likely very few, if samples are taken from the Martian surface. The risk, that a probe may be contaminated at the surface can be reduced dramatically by re-entry in the Earth atmosphere. The surface of the probe is then heated to at least several hundred degrees Celcius. This will even kill prions, and destroy any complex organic compound. The same principle is applied to avoid contamination of Mars with Earth microbes, located at the surface of the heat shield. The main risk (or chance) is hence some organism in the interior of the sample. Security has therefore to consider a hazardous organism in the interior of the probe. But it should be sufficient to treat it like Ebola or pox to not enhance risk above a background noise level of risks.


 * You may detect some anxiety in my own writing here. But if you do, that is anxiety that an article I have put a lot of work into and that I believe to be a good article, and one that will be useful for users of wikipedia, is about to be deleted. Not anxiety about a MSR. Robert Walker (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I differ between anxiety about deletion of the article and anxiety about MSR. The first one is fully accepted. For the second one, a Wikipedia article is the wrong place, and I think you agree at that point. I don't question your work in an absolute sense, it ressembles almost a Ph.D. thesis or a recommendation with some rhetoric elements. An example: "Once in the ISS they need to be examined in secure biohazard facilities by volunteer scientists who are willing to give up their lives in the remote chance that a hazard is found that is of danger to life on Earth." The part "who are willing to give up their lives in the remote chance" is complete nonsense (sorry), and purely rhetoric and suggestive, because the cumulative risk to die as a result from staying on ISS is accepted up to 3% in the professional life of an astronaut (mainly due to galactic and solar radiation), as for all manned NASA missions. Therefore mentioning the remote chance of a hazard to an astronaut by a returned sample is nonsense. Hence, it's good rhetoric in a political debate, but inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you succeed to remove that kind of rhetoric, there will be a better chance to remove the reproach of missing neutrality, and the impression of anxiety.

Reorganizing the article
I am now re-organizing the article to try to get a more logical structure to it, and to remove duplicated text.

The final stage, probably tomorrow, will be to check all the citations.

One big problem I have with htis article, have all along, is how to handle the existential risks. If you give them too much prominence then readers feel it is scare mongering. If you don't give enough prominence, then readers get the impression that there is no point in writing the article. But there is no doubt at all (with the exception of Robert Zubrin) that existential risk is involved in a MSR, all the studies agree, at a very low probability. But a very low probability existential risk is still an existential risk. Robert Walker (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not true. More exaggeration on your part. What all the studies agree on is that MSR can be done safely. Warren Platts (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * In fact none of the studies you cite use the term "existential" to qualify any purported risks. Warren Platts (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point. Generally they use more general words such as Environmental disruption. I've replaced all the cases of existential risk by environmental disruption, except in one place added, "in worst case, existential risk". It is clear from some of the quotes that the worst case scenarios they have in mind is existential risk especially the Sagan and Lederberg quotes, but also in the ESF report too, they just don't label it "existential risk", which is a modern term I believe.

I have decided to start the article by clearly stating the back contamination risks, in detail, and to all the time stress the low probability. This is not scare mongering. This is simply stating the situation, that what we are talking about here are indeed existential risks, though low probability, and with the standard view that you can reduce that probability further to the extent that the existential risk is so low probability that it is acceptable. Once that is established, then the rest of the article can continue.

If you deny any possibility of existential risk in a MSR, there is no point in this article but that is a decidedly minority POV. Amongst those who published on the subject, there is only one author, Zubrin, to my knowledge, who asserts this POV. Robert Walker (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of authors are in general agreement that the NASA and ESA plans are appropriate for dealing with the existential risk. But the international nature of an existential risk still means that these plans need to be aired openly and scrutinized widely, for both ethical and legal reasons and can't be just "left to the scientists", which is an important strand of this article. Also there are dissenters, so far these are few in number, just the ICAMSR to my knowledge. but that is enough to mean it is not a done deal that the public will agree with the NASA and ESA assessment of the situation. It is clear that when opened up for international discussion, as is required, it will be a matter for vigorous debate. Robert Walker (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since when is the Wikipedia a debate forum? If you are so worried, why don't you try to assuage your anxiety by expanding the ICAMSR article. You can put your 100,000 character POV there, since it's the same as ICAMSR's. Warren Platts (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not a place to engage in private debates, but is a suitable place to summarize published debates in notable sources so long as they pass the wikipedia criteria of notability. Robert Walker (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Robert's article into the ICAMSR article
So - that is the "tone" I want to convey in this article, OK, fair enough. But that is not the mainstream "tone". Basically, I'm having a hard time discerning the POV expressed in your published opinion piece and the POV displayed in the ICAMSR website and their members' other articles. I think maybe you could keep everybody happy--including yourself--if you basically merged the content on this page into the ICAMSR article. There, you wouldn't have to worry about being fair and balanced: you could present your argument straight away, leave out Zubrin et al., and say it's the ICAMSR argument--which would be mostly true. I know you won't like that: you feel that having a separate article on it is warranted because you feel the view that MSR is an existential threat ought to become the mainstream POV. But the voting is mostly not going your way. I urge you to play ball and be part of the team and form a consensus. Warren Platts (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren, if you call it "Environmental disruption" instead of "existential risk" it is most definitely mainstream view. I'm not sure there is too much difference between the two but the mainstream treatments tend to call it "Environmental disruption" or large scale negative ecological effects or some such.Robert Walker (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. You must be out of your mind. There has never been a recorded case of environmental disruption anywhere that was caused by the release of a bacterium. It is literally an idea that came out of science fiction: War of the Worlds and Andromeda Strain. You have no peer reviewed literature to back you up. Merely philosophical logical possibilities. A parlor game IOW. Well, then, if you think the ICAMSR POV isn't notable enough to warrant an expansive exegesis of their views, perhaps that article is also worthy of deletion. We can play it that way as well, if that's what you want. Warren Platts (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The expression "Environmental disruption" is straight from the official studies. I said al along the ICAMSR is a minority view. So also is Zubrin's view that it is "safe". In the literature that is, it certainly is, numerous treatments of the official studies, none say it is "safe" and that BC is not a concern at all and bad science as Zubrin says.


 * Amongst the people I talk about these things to, microbiologists are generally concerned, and the general public also as in reddit.com and the replies to my article, tend to be concerned too, so my perception of the prevailing view is different from yours, due to sampling a different group of people in my interactions. Don't know of any published surveys except the survey of astrobiologists that you object to. In the case of that survey you say that I have slanted the conclusions - but are yet to give a single number from the paper that I left out.Robert Walker (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think not necessarily extinction of humans mainly because with our technology seems pretty likely in one way or another probably find some fix or other that let's humans survive, at least some humans, on remote chance it does happen, though may lead to many dying or reduced life prospects - very remote chance keep reiterating and I'm not going to lose any sleepless nights over it.


 * The studies all have that as a low probability worst case scenario, though they don't emphasize it much, but it is obviously what is meant, Carl Sagan put it most clearly.


 * As for calling it an article on the ICAMSR, it simply is not. As you see below I've done a word count of the different sections in the current version as it is just now. The ICAMSR come in at 396 words and come in with fewer words devoted to them than the science related issues and far less than the prevailing view.


 * Zubrin + the early MSR decadal report survey combined come in more than ICAMSR. I would put in more on Zubrin except I can't yet get hold of the planetary report article.


 * by tone, I just meant in terms of anxiety - that it is a sober contemplative tone rather than an anxious alarmist tone. Not the POV of course, I didn't mean that at all. Robert Walker (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Measure of bias using word count
With all the talk of bias of my article, I thought I'd do a word count of the various POVs in the current version as an attempt at an objective measure of the bias.


 * Prevailing view - e.g. summary of the ESF and NRC board reports 2989 words
 * General - connecting text, titles, intro paras, factual sections not stating any view 2242 words
 * Legal and ethical general discussion (precautionary principle, theology) 1136 words
 * Science related issues - Venter, Bada, Paige etc 919 words
 * Historical - including all quotes from Carl Sagan, Ledeberg and Woese 856 words
 * ICAMSR 396 words
 * Telerobotics 352 words
 * Advocates of early MSR 348 words
 * Zubrin 267 words

Bear in mind that in a criticism type article normally you expect the prevailing view to occupy only a short section, enough so you know what it is as it is generally adequately covered elsewhere.

Here the prevailing view is actually highly relevant for the debate as it is full of uncertainties and interesting questions and the official studies themselves list far more concerns actually - plus their best efforts to mitigate them - than the ICAMSR. Plus the details of the prevailing view, if you mean the prevailing view in the official reports and literature, itself is not widely known or understood outside the experts who did the research for it and wrote the studies, and so needs to be stated in some depth. Robert Walker (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What a bunch of baloney. You just cannot help but twist things. The prevailing view is that MSR is safe. OK, you are on record as refusing to compromise. Fine with me. Let the chips fall where they may... Warren Platts (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What's your evidence? Where are all the studies and papers saying that it is safe? Robert Walker (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Every single study that was not extruded by ICAMSR! Who do you really think you're kidding?!? Warren Platts (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

All I found so far is one interview of Zubrin. I also found references to an earlier paper - with several replies by his opponents who disagree, but that is all in issues of "the planetary report" not available online even as abstracts. The only other thing you can point to is the decadal survey but that doesn't say that it is safe, it makes no comment one way or another, doesn't cover the topic as far as I can see. Robert Walker (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is impossible to accurately summarize the official studies and come to this conclusion as you seem to do in your short summary of the topic..Robert Walker (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not if you come to the subject with an open mind... Warren Platts (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You said above that in your view the Mars receiving facility is just a public relations exercise. That is the very attitude that makes the critics of an early return of MSR to Earth (including Sagan when he was alive) so concerned that it won't be dealt with with enough seriousness to truly reduce the probability of release. Robert Walker (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixing citations and issues in tone, word flow and repetition
Today I'm going through, first fixing any uncited text and any tagged issues that remain. Also dealing with minor issues such as repetition.

Also making doubly sure that every POV presented in the article is attributed to someone and not presented as an editorial POV. May also do some more re-arrangement if necessary for the structure of the article, and deal with any other issues I notice.

After this stage is finished, I plan to go through and double check all the citations, first that the correct citation is given for each statement, and then that it also accurately represents what is said in the original text. Given the large number of citations to check, this may take some time (usually does). Robert Walker (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you ever find a source for "early"? It is a yes or no question. Warren Platts (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. The article no longer defines "early", uses a different approach now. You don't need a source for an every day English word. I never thought it was really necessary anyway as it was just a matter of convenience in order to assist the reader in understanding how the article is organized but could see you had a point. But now simply don't see your point at all. It's like asking for a citation for "tomorrow". Do say more if you wish to explain why I need a citation for "early" Robert Walker (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about a source for this definition: "Depending on one's POV an early sample return could mean a sample return that is made with samples that are imperfectly known" Warren Platts (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh right, get what you are saying now. I'll think about a better way to phrase that, does look a bit strange, now you mention it, like suggesting that they all have different definitions of "early". Didn't mean it like that. Robert Walker (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And why is "early" even in the title? Warren Platts (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this a lot, and not sure it can be resolved by us - other editors may need to be involved. I feel that the time element should be mentioned in the title somehow as no-one in the debate is against a MSR in any absolute way. The whole thing focuses on the timing of the MSR. But how you do that I don't know. Also I feel strongly that the title must show that there is a diversity of views and that the article does not present a single unified "official view" or mainstream view only. That's the problem with all the "neutral tone" suggestions such as "risk mitigation strategies for a MSR" etc. But titles can be changed, rather easily, if we still can't come up with one that works for everyone. Robert Walker (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering that you refuse to listen to reason or accept compromises to the slightest degree, yes, other editors need to be involved.... Warren Platts (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed all the citations needed
Just to say that everything in the text is now cited, as far as I can see. Haven't checked them yet, which will take some time.


 * Peculiar definition of "early" still not sourced. Warren Platts (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Have done some more rewriting of the main article, mainly the intro para.
Will work on the citations maybe later this evening or tomorrow, if the article still exists. Not sure how AfD discussions are ended - do you get notification?? The only one I've been involved in before was a simple affair speedily ending in a keep. Robert Walker (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Re risk perception of MSR
This quote from my own column may be useful, though I feel I can't use it in the main article, and can't find anyone else who expresses it in quite this way.

So - that is the "tone" I want to convey in this article. I.e. a sober contemplative tone, not an anxious doomsday ridden tone of language. AFIK that is how everyone who writes on this subject understands it.

Not an inevitable scary doomsday.. Something that considered soberly, you should treat with caution.

It is the problem I have all the way through with this article, to state clearly the severity of the risk and at the same time the low probability to give this sober assessment but without it coming over as so unlikely that there is no point at all in thinking about it.

In my science20 article since I can speak in my own voice, it wasn't such a problem, but here I have to report what other people say and can't use this kind of a unifying approach I do in the science20 article.

This is the science20 article if you want to compare http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor039s_column/need_caution_early_mars_sample_return_opinion_piece-113913

It also shows my own POV. The POV of my opinion piece of course is not expressed anywhere in this wikipedia article. In the wikipedia article I have to present a lot of conflicting ideas, each expressed exactly as the original author expressed it. That is why it may come over as a bit disjointed, but that can't be helped, am doing the best I can to organize it better and make it easier to read.

What I do try to carry over is the contemplative non alarmist "tone" and most decidedly if the reader feels at all alarmed or anxious after reading this article, then that needs to be fixed, there is no need at all for personal anxiety and I'd be so sad and upset i I thought that was going to happen as a result of anyone reading it. Robert Walker (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't the risk of an occasional spreading of a devastating microbe by an impact of a Martian metorite, that takes the same short way as a man-made probe, much higher than 100%-99.9999999%? Shouldn't we prepared to it by an early MSR? Martian meteorites hit Earth rather frequently.
 * When we are talking about risks of an MSR under a BC aspect, we also need to compare it with the benefit under the same aspect.
 * Don't forget: Organisms which survive the Martian surface are best-prepared to survive in outer space.
 * Could also be with very low probability, a new treatment of severe diseases will be found that way.


 * I just try to balance your world of assumptions of almost neglectable probabilities.
 * But at the end, it's IMHO not a valid topic for Wikipedia, because it's purely speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.130.235 (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a good point: there are risks and opportunity costs associated with NOT doing MSR. It's much, much, much more likely that the insights gained from an understanding of a novel, Martian biology will lead to a cure for cancer than to something that was never more than a deus ex machina needed to bring a boring scifi novel to a close. Warren Platts (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The criterion for Wikipedia for notability generally is, cited in notable sources. The POV about martian meteorites not disproving BC is the POV presented in the National Research Council study


 * Actually it is the probe that takes the short route. The martian meteorite gets ejected with just enough escape orbit to go into independent orbit close to Mars. Most eventually return to Mars. Some will encounter Mars in ways that lead through a series of slingshot type encounters for them to eventually encounter Earth. Theoretically, seems from the models, a tiny 0.01% should make it all the way to Earth in less than a century.


 * Typically a martian meteorite needs to be ejected from an impact that created a 100 km or wider crater on Mars to reach escape velocity - those don't happen that often. Then it typically spends between several hundred thousand years and several million years in transit from Mars to Earth. It also is likely to be shocked, and is likely to be igneous rock to survive the ejection. You are talking about only a tiny fraction of all the material from an impact on Mars that has potential to transfer life to Earth. I haven't seen an estimate of how often suitable impacts occur but I guess probably something like intervals of hundreds of thousands of years on average and your best to get new species never transferred to Earth before is surely soon after the impact like within a millenium or two anyway.


 * MSR samples on the other hand are selected by the rovers as ones most likely to contain life, including clays and sulfates, transferred in a sealed capsule, probably with Mars atmosphere pressure as well, protected from radiation, no impact shock (which in some of the martian meteorites fills the interior spaces with black glass).


 * Life that survives the capsule transfer may well have never reached Earth via meteorite.


 * The NRC board




 * These are conclusions of the NRC - not mine, not the ICAMSR.


 * Note, there is also no proven instance yet of any living organism arriving on Earth via a meteorite from anywhere, so the subject is full of scientific unknowns at present.


 * As for science return, well yes, but that is where the debate of science value comes in. Many say you get far better science return by other methods, either in situ robotic studies or via telerobotics. And what level of science value can balance an existential risk at similar probability?


 * Now, I'm not saying you have to accept these arguments that the NRC made about martian meteorites. Of course not.


 * The reason you can make arguments leading to such very different conclusions is because so much of the science here is completely unknown at this stage. That plus the ethical dimension too, that the whole question, should you engage in actions that have existential risks as possible outcomes - and the need to make decisions and act based on incomplete understanding - that makes it an ethical debate not a scientific one. So the diversity of views should be expected.


 * Those of you here that criticize the article on the grounds that all the POVs in it apart from Zubrin's are invalid - that amounts to saying that the article can only present one POV on the debate. But that violates wikipedia's policies of NPOV. In areas of science you often have an "objective NPOV" as agreed on by most scientists. But in ethical debates there is no "objective NPOV". It wouldn't be an ethical debate if there was.


 * It should include:
 * POV that there is no BC risk (Zubrin)
 * POV that thee is a BC risk but it is manageable (NRC / ESA)
 * POV that there is a BC risk but that it is too risky to return to Earth until we can do biohazard testing on Mars or in space (ICAMSR)
 * POV that a MSR is of great science value (decadal survey)
 * POV that a MSR is of very little science value at this stage
 * POV that a MSR has a high risk of returning material of low value to asttobiology at this stage and that in situ observation is of much more value for astrobiology (Bada et al (8 authors), Page, Dirk Schulze-Makuch and indeed, Zubrin too for the early exploration stage we are in now).


 * None of those are objective POVs. They are all POVs of humans either making ethical judgements or making best guesses at future science and technology possibilities and at possible discoveries from Mars.


 * Sorry, but this is simply wrong. "MSR is of great science value" is evident; that's no POV. There is no way to transfere the same payload to Mars as we have on Earth in laboratories. Don't call scientific evidence a POV on the same level as some baseless conjecture like "MSR is of very little science value at this stage". May be a MSR can be expected of little value under some aspects, like biochemistry, because there may not take place biochemistry in the sample. But there are other fields of science; precise physical and chemical analysis could be carried out, including age determination, looking for microfossils, etc. Similar analysis has been done for interplanetary dust sample return; hence that's well-based knowledge.
 * Picking some words from a paper, and reassembling them with a different meaning is no valid argumentation.
 * Of course in situe observations are also of high scientific value. But that's a discussion of low budget, which order will yield the maximum scientific return, not a matter of biohazard. Maximum biohazard will always be assumed, as long as it cannot be disproved, even if in situ observations don't show any hints for biohazard.93.231.145.59 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right I stand corrected, oversimplified it for summary. The POV is that a MSR runs a risk that it will be of low science value for astrobiology because they argue that without extensive in situ observation it's likely that samples that are uninteresting biologically will be returned. But then astrobiology is the main motivation given for priority for returning samples via MSR, so if at least some astrobiologists say it is unlikely to give them the informatino they need that seems pretty relevant to the debate. I state it accurately in the article, over simplified while summarizing here.


 * Re. biohazard - yes of course until totally sure that the sample is safe you assume it is biohazardous. The point in the in situ observations for biohazard is that then you understand better what you are returning. So - here I am interpolating so can't put into the article as I don't know of anyone who goes into this "what happens next after in situ testing" in detail yet - but the way I would expect it to happen myself - if no life or well understood non biohazardous life is detected, you reduce the probability that it is biohazardous. If you observe well understood life that is potentially biohazardous or observations you can't explain that may indicate novel life processes, the probability gets increased as a result of your observations and you deal with that situation accordingly. And either way you also do whatever biohazard testing you can do in situ or in orbit first before you return it to Earth as that gives another chance to notice problems before they arise on Earth. Analogy - if going to a malaria prevalent country you take anti-malaria medicine, similarly all other precautions you can think of for other diseases. There remains a remote chance that you get some disease you hadn't thought of but if you take precautions against all the things you do think of that surely much reduces your chance of getting ill.


 * So - assuming the experts are right that the probability of risk is low, then your observations in situ will almost certainly reduce it a lot further and will deal with a number of specific known possibilities e.g. can test for terrestrial DNA, GTAs and ultramicrobacteria etc. And may well come up a negative that there is nothing like that in the sample, and have no other anomalous unexplained observations. Or you find e.g. a well understood halophile in the sample or interesting variation but feel you understand it well even though novel. On the remote chance that it is biohazardous then there is at least a reasonable chance that the in situ observations give warning that it might be - and in that case would most likely delay the return of course and do more study and testing.


 * With SEMs, and gene sequencers and more sophisticated biosignature detection, should have high quality in situ obs. in near future. I have yet to find a paper that discusses what happens next after in situ testing depending on outcome in this way though.. Am trying to find one as feel surely someone must have written on this topic. Robert Walker (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Some paper about MOMA: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/ipm2012/pdf/1116.pdf
 * A rough overview about sample return: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/programmissions/missions/missiontypes/samplereturns There is no final design yet.
 * An older strategy paper: http://www.spacearchitect.org/pubs/IAC-04-IAA.3.7.2.10.pdf93.231.145.59 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, useful links - especially the 2004 strategy paper as it goes through the various possible outcome of in situ observations, just what I was looking for, except, that it discusses them in the context of forward rather than backward contamination, so don't know if I can use them in the article yet but it is a start maybe find later papers that cite it or whatever...
 * * Scenario 1 – Quickly determining that Mars is inherently inhospitable to life
 * * Scenario 2 – Determining that Mars is naturally sterile, but could be colonized by terrestrial microorganisms
 * * Scenario 3 – Determining that Mars material is hazardous to human life or imported terrestrial ecologies
 * * Scenario 4 – Determining that Mars has extant life
 * Also, as 2004 is pre ideas that you could do a lot on Mars via telerobotics, which is a way through the author's conundrum by combining human on the spot flexibility with planetary protection. Just had a glance so far, will read your cites properly later on. Robert Walker (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A Mars sample return will be classified as category V, like Hayabusa II: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2012/05/04/Hayabusa-2_--_Hajime_Yano.pdf93.231.145.59 (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ... but restricted!93.231.145.59 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually would be good to say that it is a restricted category V under COSPAR in the article, forgot to mention that. Is a wikipedia page about them here: Planetary_protection Robert Walker (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I only ask that all POVs be included in the article and presented clearly without comment, just as in a formal debate each presents its own POV as in the original articles.


 * Note that in the article I express many POVs that personally I don't like. Many of them, I have ethical or scientific or mathematical or factual issues with and would argue against if someone presented them to me in conversation (as indeed for Zubrin's meteorite argument). All the way through my biggest gripe is the lack of any attempt by anyone to give any numbers at all for estimated probabilities of risk, or of target probabilities that are acceptable levels (even Drake equation type probabilities). That is a complaint I have for Zubrin, ESF, NSF, ICAMSR, everyone.


 * E.g. for the ESF report - their argument is that since the original probability is already low, then a million fold reduction makes it a probability that is low enough to be acceptable. But how low was the original low probability? How on earth can you say a million fold reduction is enough of a reduction for an existential risk when you have no idea what the original probability was or what your target combined probability is? I find this vagueness in the reports hugely frustrating.


 * The precise probabilities are simply not known, not distinguishable from zero. All what can be done is to estimate a high biohazard probability as upper bound, and a low probability for scientific evidence as lower bound. The data so far available support a low upper bound for biological activity, including zero, at Martian surface. Viking results are ambiguous, but hints for metabolism are now considered more likely as purely chemical. Methane data are also ambiguous, no significant signal so far by MSL (upper bound 3 p.p.b. afaik), all organics (e.g. chlorinated methane) found so far most likely a chemical reaction product of Martian perchlorates with contaminations from Earth (e.g. MBSTFA, benzene). Although CO2 findings don't rule out highly hydrogen-poor hydrocarbons, but could also be due to carbonates. Analysis results are provided by the NASA Planetary Data System (PDS) with a delay of about six months, if you want to know the very details. (e.g. http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/msl/msl-m-sam-2-rdr-l0-v1/mslsam_1xxx/data/eid25038/level2/sm25038f0093rdr2__spyr_gc__species_2.jpg for a graphical representation of gc (gas chromatograph) results, or http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/msl/msl-m-sam-2-rdr-l0-v1/mslsam_1xxx/data/eid25038/level2/sm25038f0093rdr2__spyr_qms_notesxx_2.txt for some explanation; here a qms (quadrupole mass spectrometer) result of the same sample (file sm25038f0093rdr2__spyr_qms_egaxxxx_2.csv in the same PDS subdirectory):
 * "SPECIES","PEAK TEMPERATURE"
 * "1,3-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,1,3,3-tetramethyldisiloxane",200
 * "tert-butyldimethylsilanol",170
 * "tert-butyldimethylfluorosilane",220
 * "2,2,2-trifluoro-N-methyl-acetamide",215
 * "H2O",256
 * "H2O",650
 * "CH3Cl",280
 * "CH2Cl2",295
 * "O2",385
 * "CO2",389
 * "CO2",467
 * "SO2",500
 * "SO2",655
 * "OCS",655
 * "H2S",665
 * "HCl",690)
 * Any recent biologic activity would leave lots of different substances that evaporate at lower temperature.
 * So there has been found nothing so far, which could support your concern. But exploration is continuing, and it will take several years to start a MSR, enough time to collect more data before.93.231.145.59 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * But in the article as is required I present all the ideas without comment, in their author's words exactly as in the source papers. It is an interesting and useful exercise sometimes to do that.


 * I don't believe it would be possible for anyone to detect from reading the article (without consulting this talk page) which of the POVs in the article the editor personally liked and which he disliked, or that I have a personal gripe with the probability estimates. It is my aim to write it so that it is like that. I welcome assistance in expressing all the POVs correctly. However I don't go along with suggestions to delete or rewrite sections for the POVs that other editors disagree with. I think in debates like this editors, if not used to writing POVs from the point of view of the source (it takes a fair bit of getting used to that!), can contribute best by helping with sections that express their own POV.


 * I feel if we were having this discussion in one of the topic areas of wikipedia sch as for instance social issues and debates rather than a science topic area, the other editors would be bewildered that I am having so much difficulty getting acceptance from other editors for the need for many POVs to be presented in this article. It is after all a core wikipedia policy. Robert Walker (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Try reading the sections on WP:UNDU and WP:OR. Does this help? Warren Platts (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As for all your quotes: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." cf. WP:IMPARTIAL


 * On POV forks: "A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia."Warren Platts (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Best attempt at fixing the timing section
I now do it like this in the article:

Timing concerns for a Mars sample return
There are many potential issues concerning the timing of a Mars sample return. Some questions that need to be considered before return of samples to Earth are:


 * Should a Mars receiving facility be constructed first?
 * Should samples be examined for biosignatures and geological context on Mars first?
 * Should samples be examined for signs of life first with advanced tools such as Scanning Electron Microscopes, DNA sequencers, or labelled culture experiments on Mars?
 * Should they be tested for their biohazard potential in Earth like environments on Mars or in orbit (around Mars, the Earth or the Moon), before return to Earth?

Most researchers are agreed on the first two points but there are dissenting views on the remaining two.

It is just meant as a way to help organize the material that follows by listing some typical questions that are answered in various different ways in the literature. I could do a citation for each of those points, but it is clear enough as you read through the rest of the section. I thought maybe better to present as questions here rather than a list of "... says ... and ... says..." to give the reader a clear set of "hooks" to help as they read the rest of the section. Robert Walker (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Compare ExoMars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExoMars), Mission objectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.157.33 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Started on citations and ref fixing
It looks like it will be a fairly long process, have done intro para and first para of the next section, found one ref to fix so far and need to double check it all with a second pass through I think at the end. More tomorrow (assuming article still exists). Robert Walker (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay I see the decision was delete and merge
I can't work on this any more as in my view the proposal to present it with almost no mention of divergent POVs is one that is totally inappropriate for the topic. So will have to leave this to other editors and withdraw from this part of wikipedia Robert Walker (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merged short version to Mars sample return mission; added redirect to International Committee Against Mars Sample Return


 * @ Robert: I hope there's no hard feelings. Cheers,  Warren Platts (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Warren nothing personal, if we meet in some other context I won't hold a personal grudge against you for this. I see your actions as biased towards something similar to Zubrin's ideas, from my POV - but for sure, good faith edits, and of course you won't see your actions as biased. Robert Walker (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)