Letter: Monster spends

As promised on your front page, James Lovelock's review of The Quest for Mars (Books, THES, February 2) did slay some monster myths about Mars. But I would be sad if it spawned a new myth.

Lovelock argues: "Understanding the Earth is by far our most pressing need, but it would be wrong to think on this account that Nasa's exploration of Mars is a waste of time and money. Medical science grew in understanding by examining dead bodies...."

This analogy does not hold water. Given a choice between examining a live body and paying huge amounts of money to squint at a dead body through a keyhole, I am pretty sure that a lot more could be learnt from the former.

Mars missions are very expensive and we need to think carefully about whether that money could not be better spent.

Graeme Ruxton
Division of environmental and evolutionary biology
University of Glasgow