All are sensitive to scientific issues and approach questions from an evidence-based perspective.

An intellectual who knows what he is talking about on a diverse range of policies. He would keep the facts straight and ask relevant and difficult questions. No softballs, no gimmes, and no BS.

THIS IS A NO-BRAINER, PEOPLE!

She is smart, well-educated, thoughtful and has journalistic savvy. She also has a great take on how our science policies affect the whole of America. She would also be able to ask questions in a way that the candidates would have to give actual answers. And phrase them so that they could understand them (since they are not scientists).

A non-controversial celebrity with an interest in science and has a big ticket factor

Founder of C-Span.

We need a moderator who is respected, non partisan, but not allow the politicians to avoid hard questions and who will follow up until they do answer the question.

I like the idea of three. Hoewever, they would need to know the science AND be able to take on the candidates in a debate format while being neutral. Ira Flatow would be a great anchor due to his interviewing skills and overall knowledge, Sanjay Gupta can assist with specifics of the biological sciences and Neil de Gras Tyson can assist with the specifics of the physical sciences.

Michael Sandel teaches Political Philosophy at Harvard. Some of his talks can be seen on TED.com, - TED Talks. Sandel has said, "Democracy thrives on Civil Debate." He is well-spoken and is very capable of honing in on the fine points.

Non-controversial, extremely knowledgable and very "human" and likeable. Clearly loves talking science and is a registered Republican. Perhaps his involvement could signal that it's OK for GOP to embrace peer-reviewed science.

Hank Green, a Vlogger and Blogger with an interest in Science and Technology. Michio Kaku as a futurist to bring in someone who would be keeping a very long term forward facing viewpoint. And Morgan Freeman as the Celebrity factor and to put a name on the panel that most people would be familiar with.

Sitting in the back of the room are a panel of 5 or so relevant experts whose job it is to push their BS button if they think the candidate has dodged the question or simply answered it poorly. Get three or more of them to push their button, and you're interrupted to let you know that you're considered to be off topic.

You assign a penalty of some sort if they get buzzed too many times.

The bad news... no presidential candidate would have the chutzba to ever agree to this.

a team of 4 ... 2 scientist 1 journalist and a politician like al gore
a politician is needed to help bridge the gap on how unscientific our lawmakers are

Greg was previous President of ASBMB (American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology). A tireless advocate for science, science education, and for using non-partisan, science-based approaches for finding answers to many of today's pressing issues & problems. If you've ever read any of his "President's Messages", in "ASBMB Today", you'd soon have a sense of what a wonderful candidate he'd be for a panel moderating a discussion with presidential candidates on topics near & dear to all who value science as an integral part of of our society's future.

There are so many good names to choose from, I think it would be better to select several in order of preference (high to low). Maybe limit to top 10.

Since Social Security is in danger, why can't the house, Senate and other congressional people take a cut in pay for once and add that to Social Security to give it the boost now that the drain of more baby boomers are retiring instead of making us take the cut?

I've watched several of your presentations online, read the book, and you have the important skill of connecting the dots in the multiverse of climate history, facts and issues. Have you eliminated your self? Scientists should be empaneled and lead questioning IMO, but not be in charge of moderating, thus allowing a clear distinction for the roll of scientists as trusted sources of factual reality and evaluation of debaters statements.