Terraforming vs. Ethics of Science

In Robinson's *Red Mars*, two scientists argue about whether to terraform Mars. One says the probability of indigenous life is too low to worry about. The other says you can't destroy what you haven't ruled out. Both positions sound scientific. Neither actually is — one is making a bet, the other is invoking a principle that can't be tested. What's striking is that Cherryh's *Cyteen* resolves the same debate differently: they terraform, it destroys native species, and the scientists call it "a unique opportunity to study interface zones." The ethics of science in this library never produces a clean answer. It produces accounting — and the question is always who gets to decide what counts as a cost.