Sir

As a member of the board of directors for Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) and president of the Federation of American Scientists, two organizations mentioned in your Editorial 'Nobels in dubious causes' (Nature 447, 354; 2007), I must take exception to your argument that scientists should not overstep their expertise.

In matters of interior decoration you'd be as likely to get good advice from a person pulled at random off the streets of Glasgow as from a gaggle of Nobel laureates. But eminent scientists bring much-needed perspectives and insight to policy decisions that hinge on scientific facts and methods, and the uncertainties associated with them. Many of the most difficult political issues today — such as climate change, securing nuclear materials, setting priorities in health research and many others — are intimately tied to issues in science.

Given the cacophony of biased and misleading information that dominates many of these debates, the kind of advice and leadership provided by scientists is essential.

How could it be considered 'dubious' for scientists to defend and explain the process of scientific inquiry, when elected officials are making technical decisions based on the advice of novelists and religious extremists? SEA was organized to ensure that candidates' positions on critical science-policy matters are easily available, clearly understood and openly debated.

Your Editorial implies that this essential public service is inappropriate. On the contrary, it would be a terrible mistake if scientists with information critical to the debate retreat to ivory towers. Scientists have a responsibility to bring relevant facts to light, provide early warnings of problems that scientists are uniquely able to see and suggest solutions that might otherwise not enter the debate.