Ron is absolutely right. Seashells would be an incontrovertible indication that life existed on Mars. "LIFE FOUND ON MARS!" would a be a banner headline in every newspaper and the lead story on radio and television news. That would be an incredible success for NASA and all of the space sciences, not only in terms of science itself, but a huge boost in prestige and a powerful lever for future funding. The idea that "one loon with a website," as Ron so aptly puts it, made the "discovery" when xeno- and astrobiologists studying such data, and NASA itself (who issued the pictures) missed it, verges on the silly. After all, searching for signs of life, past or present, is one of the primary purposes of this latest mission.

I have eagerly followed this sort of thing ever since I first started reading the "Buck Rogers" comic strip when I was six years old. No one would be more ecstatic than I would be if signs of life, no matter how primitive, were found on another planet. This would indicate the possibility of more complex life-forms developing, even the possibility of intelligent life-forms. I look forward with eager anticipation to such a discovery.

BUT—I run anything like this "seashells on Mars" thing through a filter of rational skepticism. Although I'm only an "armchair scientist," from reading spurred by a lifelong interest, I venture to say that I'm considerably more knowledgeable about planetology and astrobiology than most.

I'm quite convinced that there is life out there. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of organic chemicals and compounds out yonder, but so far, no Martians, no Vulcans, no Klingons (there is even some doubt as to the existence of William Shatner), and fortunately, no Vogons. Not even a Martian oyster announcing "I'm right here, but you'll have to bring your own tartar sauce."

It's good to keep an open mind about things like this. But one's mind should not be so open that one's brain drops out.

Don Firth