Perhaps the issue here is that I just look at this much differently than a scientist. Let's assume I am the captain of the USS Enterprise and my goal is to exp

Perhaps the issue here is that I just look at this much differently than a scientist. Let's assume I am the captain of the USS Enterprise and my goal is to explore new life and new civilizations. Our ship will be passing up tens of thousands of planets that may be teaming with life and fascinating things that could lead to new discoveries and scientific breakthroughs. The science officers on my ship would certainly love to stop and visit every single one of those planets. I have to make some decisions that they may not like however. I have other officers that must analyze the cost of visiting each planet, weigh the risks of each one. There is a cost benefit analysis that must occur each time. Without following this protocol, I am endangering the lives of my crew for what may be little to no gain. There has to be enough evidence that the planet in question offers something worth risking life and limb before I even consider sending down an away party, otherwise at most I will send down a probe. In the fantasy concept of Star Trek, a probe is minimal cost and risk. Today, that probe is a very large sum of money, some of which is paid by tax payers. So while I agree with you that there is certainly reason to believe something can be gained, I expect to see some quantifiable scientific data that suggests these gains are worth spending money there verses here.