Sir

David Goldston in his Column 'A debatable proposition' (Nature 451, 621; 2008) questions the wisdom of a presidential debate on science and raises several issues that explain his scepticism. I am in favour of such a debate, but I urge the organizers of the petition calling for this, at http://www.Sciencedebate2008.com, to give thoughtful consideration to Goldston's points.

I believe the debate is important for several reasons. It will improve the public's understanding of the host of challenges faced by the new president, and by the rest of us in the United States, in areas such as health and medicine, energy and climate change, economic competitiveness and jobs, clean air and water, security, natural (and unnatural) disasters and many others. These will require the new knowledge and tools that stem from research and innovation, coupled with wise policy choices. The American people should expect their future president to understand and be able to articulate this coupling and how it relates to his or her priorities. And the candidates should see this as an opportunity to show the voters what visionary leadership in the twenty-first century is all about.

In framing the debate and developing specific questions for the candidates, the organizers should bear in mind some of the pitfalls that Goldston mentions. For example, understanding climate change and its probable impact on the planet and its people is a matter for science. But the challenge goes far beyond science and technology, even though taking steps to lessen the negative consequences will require scientific understanding and technology. It will involve political trade-offs that we in the science community might not want the public to associate with science. So there is a risk in holding such a debate. However, in my opinion, the risk is well worth taking.