Many, many single-purpose rovers can be sent in the place of a human mission with no risk to human life. There is no scientific justification for sending humans on a science mission, it's mostly just adventurism.
I think I'd feel better about the suggestion for a manned mission if it talked about 1) what value a human would offer in collecting samples and analyzing data over a robot 2) how that value would compare to mass of air, water, and food as well as life-support systems and radiation shielding; the additional fuel and oxidizer to move the mass of the crew and supporting systems 3) the ethics of sending someone capable of doing this important research to their probable deaths rather than an unmanned mission and 4) the cost-benefit to funding this versus other non-space exploration efforts.
What also gets to me is that clearly people have done this cost-benefit analysis before - people that know a lot more about the topic than me. It lacks humility to ignore their reasoning (see https://spacenews.com/independent-report-concludes-2033-huma...).
Highly doubt this, but I am no expert. A human is just very flexible and the rovers up there look super complicated while only been capable of very simple tasks. A lot of scientific progress happened because somebody took a risk, not in the name of adventurism, but in the name of science.
