Policymaking and law aren’t rocket science. They’re much harder than that. Here’s an introductory lesson in public debate, for all the scientists who think they don’t need it.

Most of us can’t do anything about the horrible stuff that’s happening in the world right now. But when the news is intolerable, we don’t have to immerse ourselves in it first thing in the morning.

Whether you’re a radio club, a university, or a biome, you can’t afford monoculture.

As the shoutfest The Onion fittingly dubbed “The War for the White House” staggers towards its storm-soaked climax next Tuesday, there’s one fundamental question that I don’t think has really been answered yet:

Why are scientists such raving liberals?

We can’t deny that we look that way to the general public. Nature, which is to science what The Wall Street Journal is to investment banking, unabashedly endorsed President Obama for re-election. Sixty-eight Nobel laureates signed an open letter making the same endorsement. If you follow scientists or science journalists on Twitter, your feed will seldom go an hour without someone advocating Democratic policies or candidates. And by the highly polarized standards of our time, voting for Democrats automatically constitutes raving liberalism, as surely as voting for a Republican is diagnostic of reactionary wingnuttery.