If we had to dispense with all the scientific discoveries that were made unexpectedly, we would be living in a very different, and much less interesting world. It has often been stated that Curiosity is not seeking life. True, but what if it finds something it wasn't seeking? Is Curiosity able to detect life? Not directly, just as Dr. Grotzinger said. It *can* detect chemical 'biosignatures' which are indicators of life. For example, if it analyzes a carbon containing compound, and finds more of the lighter isotopes of carbon than the heavier ones, this would strongly point to life. Life processes preferentially make use of the lighter isotopes. We have no better explanation for a preponderance of the lighter isotopes, than the presence of life.
Guy Webster, who made the 'won't be Earthshaking, but it will be interesting' remark is not a scientist, but a journalist or publicist, working for JPL/NASA. I doubt that he has been apprised of the information that the science team is holding so closely at the moment. He was probably reacting to all the public speculation about the discovery of life on Mars, and recalled that he'd been told that Curiosity wasn't seeking life, and couldn't (directly) detect it.

Dear NASA......If you burn me again with needless hype, Ill spend my remaining years doing everything I can to petition your funding cut to absolutely nothing..

You dont make a proverbial mountain out of a mole hill, oh no... You make a got damn Dyson sphere out of a single atom. you blow things out of proportion so much you could easily be mistaken the storm of the century.

When the sun shines (as it always does) and casts a long shadow across the ground (as it always does) you literally CRAP yourselves and proclaim it to be the MOTHER OF ALL DISCOVERIES...*echo echo echo. Earth shattering, knowledge Rocking, heart stopping, history making, shoe polishing, orange juice making, DEAR GOD WE FOUND BS!!!

I'm watching you man,....Don't Screw us over again. dont do it!

At the risk of repeating myself, may I remark that it is quite true that Curiosity's mission wasn't to seek out life on Mars. We should, I think, consider the possibility that it could find something it wasn't intended to look for. Many scientific discoveries are unexpected, even accidental.
Can Curiosity detect life? Not directly, but it can detect chemical 'biosignatures' that would constitute very strong evidence for life. For example, if organic (carbon containing) material is found, Curiosity can distinguish one isotope of carbon from another. Life preferentially uses the lightest carbon isotopes. If these predominate in a soil sample it points to life. We have no better explanation for a bias toward light carbon isotopes, than the presence of life.

NASA is about to make the Mars rover announcement very soon, maybe in the next hour I think. Also news just released that Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, is pregnant... and the Pope will begin tweeting on the 12th of Dec. Somehow these things must be related because they are being announced at the same time.

Originally posted by Lucas73
NASA is about to make the Mars rover announcement very soon, maybe in the next hour I think. Also news just released that Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, is pregnant. Somehow these things must be related because they are being announced at the same time.

On David Ickes theory, the Duchess of Cambridge is about to lay her eggs

So the news wasn't that big after all, the only interesting thing to note from the press conference was the fact that the images are being put on the internet faster than they can look at them all. Keep checking JPL site for anything interesting

NASA is the biggest waste of tax payers money, first they claim they have earth shaking something and a few days later what we get to hear? Oh its nothing Ground earth shaking.

And now NASA is asking another billion to make a new Rover.