Sen. Hillary Clinton, in her Thursday debate with Sen. Barack Obama, observed:

"We also need to invest in our infrastructure. We don't have enough roads to take care of the congestion, we have crumbling bridges and tunnels. We need to rebuild America, and that will also put people to work."

Then she hit her home run:

"This is about how we fund the future. We've got to get back to being the innovation nation. Think of everything that goes on at this great university to create the new economy..." she said to her University of Texas audience.

Science is a terrible think to waste. All one has to do is peak around Europe to see what is being done with renewable power, or take a look at Brazil to see what has been accomplished with biofuels and one quickly realizes that the United States has been losing a lot of its edge leading the world to where it inevitably must head.

EnergyBiz magazine has joined with other publications, scientists and others calling for presidential candidates to debate the future rule of science in America. To support that effort, go to Science Debate 2008 on the Internet.

I had a chance to raise the question of debates with two energy leaders at CERA Week in Houston last Thursday. Jim Rogers, the thoughful, colorful leader of Duke Energy, in a press conference responsed to my question on the topic, saying, "A national conversation about these issues is really important. Having presidential candidates [debate] will encourage people to talk about it."

Deryk King, the head of Direct Energy, was darker in his outlook. "Energy is a vote loser," he said. "I worry what people will say."

Our democracy is half full, Rogers might say, or half empty, King might reply.

Tthe debate must be engaged regardless of the risks. If the energy industry must change in big, profoundly expensive ways, new leaders must emerge who can explain the options and help implement what is possible and desirable. Otherwise, it well may be lights out.