Is NASA Too Worried about Contaminating Mars?

It's time to relax constraints on Mars exploration, researchers argue

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Does Mars need protection from our microbes? Conventional wisdom says yes, as does space law—the United Nations Outer Space Treaty prohibits the contamination of potentially fertile worlds with earthly bacteria. Yet some researchers disagree: Mars will be just fine on its own, they say, and the stringent safeguards now in place discourage scientists from exploring the Red Planet. On missions dedicated to searching for life, costs “could easily double because of planetary protection procedures,” says Cornell University astrobiologist Alberto G. Fairén.

Protecting Mars is not worth the effort and expense, Fairén and Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University argue in a recent issue of Nature Geoscience. After all, some Earth bacteria are probably already there, having hitched a ride on debris from ancient meteor impacts or more recently on NASA's Viking landers. Besides, any life-form already on Mars would easily fight off the poorly adapted invasive microbes.

The odds of NASA changing course are low. “If you want to study life elsewhere, you have to make sure not to bring Earth materials along” or else risk mistaking stowaways for alien life, says Catharine Conley, NASA's planetary protection officer.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


John Rummel, Conley's predecessor at NASA, says simulations and experiments suggest Earth bacteria actually could survive on Mars. Adds Rummel: “We don't know everything that Earth organisms can do.”

Scientific American Magazine Vol 309 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Stop Pampering the Red Planet” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 309 No. 3 (), p. 24
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0913-24a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe