It's Friday, September 9th, 2016, and you're listening to Inquiring Minds. I'm Andrei Viscontas.

And I'm Keshore Hari. Each week, we bring you a new in-depth exploration of the space where science,

politics, and society collide. We endeavor to find out what's true, what's left to discover, and why it all

matters. You can find us online at motherjones.com

or inquiringshow.com.

You can also find us on Twitter at inquiringshow and Facebook.

And you can subscribe to the show on iTunes or any other podcasting app.

Today's show is brought to you by Audible, with an unmatched selection of audiobooks, original audio shows, news, comedy, and more.

Get a free audiobook with a 30-day trial at audible.com slash minds.

That's audible.com slash minds. We're in the midst of a huge political season here in the U.S.,

which has seemingly gone on forever. I feel like I can't even remember a time there wasn't election

coverage on the news. And the usual conversations around the economy and national security have come front and center,

plus a few unusual ones. But once again, we rarely see much in the way of science conversation,

especially science policy conversation during the season. Just last week, the team at

science debate released 20 science and science policy

questions. They'd like to see the candidates answer. I am not holding my breath that either of

them will actually answer them just like in years past. But it brings up an interesting question.

Why don't we have more science discussions during the election?

Oh, that's such a loaded question. But, you know, yeah, I think the answer is that science is perceived as not always coming down on an issue straight up and politicians have to make talking points and it's often hard to do that if the

science hasn't been completely established yet. I agree with you. I share my pessimism that

science can ever really enter these conversations, but maybe that's because I'm cynical because

I'm too used to the recent trope of the I'm not a scientist

...