WASHINGTON - Daniel Suson has a doctorate in astrophysics and has worked on the superconducting super collider and a coming NASA probe. Now he's heading back to school to take on an even trickier task -- getting elected to public office.

He is among a growing number of scientists who feel slighted and abused in the public debate in recent years and are mobilizing to inject "evidence-based decision making" into public policy.

Today, Suson, dean of engineering, mathematics and science at Purdue University Calumet, will join more than 70 other scientists, engineers and students at a hotel at Georgetown University for a crash course on elective politics.

"I've always been interested in politics, but my participation has been limited to yelling at my television," said Jason Haeseler, a Florida engineer and former registered Republican who will take the class and hopes to run for office as an independent.

The workshop includes advice on putting together a campaign staff, raising money, keeping a budget and using the Internet to one's advantage. There will be networking and cocktails, staples of Washington politics.

Science has become a part of every major issue of modern life, said neurologist Alan Leshner, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"At the same time that's happening, there's increased tensions between science and society," he said.

Scientists cite the debate over global warming as an example of having their insights and warnings cast aside. They have also complained the Bush administration has censored some of their research on warming and endangered species.

Scientists are also pushing hard for a presidential debate this year focusing on climate change and other science issues.

Rep. Bill Foster, an Illinois physicist elected to the House in March as a Democrat, said the push for a larger role for science in politics is important.

"Politicians have thought they could get away with saying things that are quantitatively false," Foster said Friday.

Foster said he wants more fact and less ideology in political debate.