FROM THE EDITORS Should skepticism be limited to certain fields, certain subjects or certain groups of people? Shall scientists, for example, be exempted from skepticism and rational scrutiny? We always assumed that the answer to both questions is "No!" until recently when it was raised de facto by a presumed skeptic. We bring up the issue here in order to solicit opinions from our readers. In the October-December 1996 issue of Rational Inquiry we published an article by Barbara B. Hemmingsen entitled "Life on Mars: A Brief Look at the Evidence." This article was precipitated by news conferences and other public relation stunts by NASA earlier in the year directed at engaging the mass media and the popular press to sell some dubious scientific claims to the general public rather than the scientific community (or so it appeared). Even President Clinton got into the act. The claim was that a meteorite ejected from Mars long ago and found in Antarctica contains remnants of life on that planet. With the public well prepared for this astonishing claim, the article backing it up was published subsequently in Science magazine. It was skeptically examined by Barbara who presented some of her conclusions in the Rational Inquiry article. She pointed out some obvious flaws (but not necessarily errors) in the article, and suggested that great caution should be used before accepting some of the claims made. The Rational Inquiry article was seen by and summarized in the December, 1996, issue of Skeptical Briefs, the newsletter of CSICOP. However, a reader of Skeptical Briefs in a letter to the editor in the March, 1997, issue chastised the newsletter for publishing the summary on the grounds that it should use its precious space for paranormal or pseudoscience matters and not for the evaluation of scientific reports. However, this reader did admit that "in any research project there must eventually be a time to open the argument to the interested community as a whole, to obtain a wider range of views and expertise." We believe that this time should come sooner rather than later, particularly when the public is assaulted by scientists using the uncritical mass media to promote extraordinary claims. Although irrationality is rarely present in the claims, economics, politics and other power issues can be important factors. Skepticism is especially in order in science since the public must have confidence in its integrity. Unchecked for long periods of time, questionable and erroneous science can have dire consequences, such as the allocation of limited resources for wasted research, not to mention that it may provide fodder for pseudoscientists and other charlatans. We will continue to speak out on such matters, and we applaud Skeptical Briefs for taking this step. We believe that skeptics should pay attention to all areas of human activity and not just those that deal with the paranormal and pseudoscience. We suspect that many or most of our readers will agree. ___________ The editors can be reached by E-mail at "ehemming@san.rr.com".