Scientists are waging a campaign of their own to get the presidential candidates to debate major policy issues that involve science. But such a debate would probably serve neither the public nor scientists, according to a commentary in the journal Nature (subscription required).

A debate in that “showy realm” could instead reinforce a damaging trend among some scientists and policy makers to assume that research findings can dictate a single, correct answer to complicated policy questions, like global warming and renewable energy, writes David J. Goldston. Now a lecturer at Harvard University, he was formerly chief of staff to the U.S House of Representatives Committee on Science from 2001 to 2006, while Republicans controlled the panel.

“Framing questions of economics, ethics, and other aspects of policy as ‘science issues’ does no favor for either science or politics” and has “helped to turn science into a political football,” he writes.

A debate over the teaching of evolution in schools wouldn’t enlighten viewers about the evidence supporting evolutionary theory, he suggests. And although the Republican contender Mike Huckabee has said he doesn’t believe the theory of evolution is true, it is “demonstrably untrue” that a disbelief in evolution, “distressing as that is,” leads politicans to question research spending in biology, Mr. Goldston writes.

As for debating the adequacy of federal financing for scientific research, Mr. Goldston cautions: Be careful what you wish for. “The National Science Foundation budget has fared relatively well over the years even though the agency is not particularly well known. The NSF’s headaches have come when it has been in the political spotlight, as politicians raised questions about the legitimacy of specific grants.”

Mr. Goldston said scientists should hardly withdraw from political engagement but “might be better served spending their time on lobbying Capitol Hill and talking to candidates.”