Even though some of us feel that the AGW (and CW) debate is a dead horse beaten too much, perhaps the following scientist might be an interesting interview candidate: David Evans http://sciencespeak.com/about.html - mathematical climate modeller, not climate-change denier nor , trying to model mathematically accurate the climate warming model (looking for more than just GHG forcing components as inputs), keeps building his models, tests his assumptions and is willing to abandon positions, when he himself (or data) prove him wrong. Then another hotly contested topic is the notion of cancer, and of course it might turn out to be technical, but could be interesting also from the history of (medical) science POV and from the notion of Latourian concept of how scientific truths are manufactured (or storied-up): Thomas Seyfried http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/biology/facadmin/seyfried.html - highly academically accomplished, well spoken, goes back in history to look at cancer as a metabolic disease and combines that with new findings, can also talk about history of discoveries and treatments and why they were forgotten/pushed aside (which might be an interesting area to take this into, as it goes into the incentives in the sick-care industry). and related still in medical field Dr. Marcia Angell (Harvard) http://bioethics.hms.harvard.edu/person/faculty-members/marcia-angell or Peter Gotzsche, M.D. (Cochrane group) http://www.deadlymedicines.dk/category/blog/ Either can be interviewed about incentives, research, diagnosis and targeting of pharmacological industry. Why it's unreliable, what happens and why, what can be done about it and what is the notion of science (the ideal, of scientific process) in a science (as a sociological activity, done by imperfect humans and companies). How can we skeptical about medicine, doctors and research and if we can't trust them, what is the alternative (again going beyond dichotomy of "they are all wrong all the time or they are all right all the time"). Esp. Gotzsche is very outspoken and doesn't mince words in his criticism of the pharmacological industry. I'm sure he might be an interesting person to interview.