wait is this thread about the habs or general overarching discussion of leadership in society including in the academic, political, business and other classes of society? just checking...
I think that the academics provide solid leadership today. In that field, we've lost some great minds in the last decade or so (Gould, Sagan etc.) but great minds are always coming up as well. In this manner however, I think that academics and scientists often aren't able to lead in a larger sense because of the ingrained skepticism that comes with the field. What I mean is that, many professors and researchers have to hold back stating things in a concrete black vs. white issue, because things are quite often, much more complicated than that. However, due to a lack of widespread scientific literacy (and possibly literacy in general), people mistake that skepticism and complication for a lack of tangible evidence or a weakness in the argument. If more people were aware of this "science is neither black nor white" mold, then it would aid in the revolution of creativity and progressive thought in America.
That knowledge or lesson may need to be given by leaders, but its difficult for it to come from academics themselves as there is a stigma attached to being an "intellectual" that didn't always exist. That stigma molds into business and political decisions which preclude some of these scientists from having their lessons broadcast on television or have unprofitable ideas, etc.
I state this as such: if Dr. Scientist has an idea for curbing "example of a problem" that needs American people to change their lifestyle/choice of car/music selection, Dr. Scientist needs to reach the eyes and ears of the people. To do so requires access to media, or a political decision to make some referendum or decree on the importance of said problem. However, if this idea is somehow not profitable, or anti-business then the marketability of this solution is fighting an uphill battle; and if the politicians deem the problem to be a liability politically (i.e. detrimental to re-election) then they have no need to pursue action. So, Dr. Scientist is systematically shut out from trying to be a leader, unless they have the eyes and ears of the people already...
Another occurring issue is a strong anti-intellectual movement in a socio-political movement. In the past, it seemed that the well-read and well-learned were respected and their ideas were strongly listened to. I look in history to see the national importance of Oppenheimer, Einstein, Fermi, Feynman, Sagan etc. who provided obtainable social/scientific goals, philosophical muses on the importance of critical thought, and the need for education of their "high-end" ideas to the layman who is unable to read publications or have a front-row view on modern science. I now see a lot of people who frown on intellectuals, as though having a PhD and using it puts that individual on some elitist platform that is contrary to the needs of "blue-collar" or the common man.
As you may gather, Carl Sagan is a personal hero of mine. His ability to break down complex topics on astrophysics, climate change or human evolution and the future of cosmos exploration was immensely important to the national conscience. We have similar minds today, Hawking and deGrasse Tyson come to mind, but I think many people don't want to hear them out because of a stigma against the intellectual. Or if they are heard (or read), their ideas or solutions to modern problems are marginalized as being too academic, not realistic, or not concrete enough to merit action(back to the science is neither black nor white idea).
