The Register's editorial

During a GOP presidential debate last year, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was asked if Donald Trump should stop saying vaccines cause autism. Carson artfully suggested Trump do more reading and rightly noted there is absolutely no evidence of a link between childhood immunizations and autism.

Then Trump got a chance to respond. Though he recognized the importance of inoculations, he chose to share an anecdote about an unnamed toddler who “went to have the vaccine” and “now is autistic.”

That is akin to suggesting the world is flat because someone told you a friend walked off the edge. Or the moon is made of cheese because your coworker said so. The world is not flat. The moon is not made of cheese. Vaccines do not cause autism. Those are facts, not opinions. They are not less true because someone shares a contrary anecdote.

Political and public discourse could be elevated if politicians based their rhetoric in facts. You know, the stuff that has actually been proven true through studies, data collection and research. If candidates used facts as a premise, they wouldn’t waste time disputing the existence of climate change. They wouldn’t suggest violent crime is historically high when it's not. They would know apprehensions of unauthorized immigrants entering the country have significantly decreased. Political and public conversations would change significantly.

Ideally, the people seeking to govern a first-world country would have a basic understanding of everything from sustainable energy to environmental threats to evidence-based medicine. They would talk about these things. At least that is the hope of a nonpartisan organization supported by more than 100 organizations representing millions of Americans.

Science Debate is urging political candidates and media to give attention to science, engineering, technology, health and environmental issues that affect the lives of voters. As it has done in previous presidential elections, the organization offered 20 questions to presidential candidates this year.

The candidates, including Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, are asked to identify their priorities in scientific research, their views on climate change and what steps they would take to protect against cyber attacks while protecting personal privacy. They are asked to explain their energy strategy and articulate how they see the energy landscape evolving.

Among the questions: What would you do to address antibiotic-resistant superbugs? Guarantee access to safe and affordable food? Address the fact that some Americans have lost access to water? Will you support vaccine research and space exploration?

“Science, engineering, health and environmental issues affect every voter’s life as profoundly as the foreign policy, economic policy, and faith and values candidates often debate,” the organization wrote.

Imagine if the public — and debate moderators — pressured presidential candidates to talk about the country's electrical grid or emerging disease threats instead of abortion and transgender bathrooms. Political discourse would be smarter. And the individuals who seek the highest office in the land might learn a few things, too.