Research does not require intelligence? What the hell am I reading here?
To answer the OP questions:
No, as I have not yet developed the experience and other skills that any full-fledged biologist should have.
Someone posted a chart a while ago on this thread, but IQ doesn't really capture intelligence fully, does it? Other professions may be smarter for different reasons, such as creativity. The only way to be creative in science (as far as I know) is coming up with new experimental techniques.
Non-scientists also have a stake in discussions about science issues, as it affects them too and may help focus research on what the public needs. However, they should not twist the science to fit their own purposes. The general public is more likely to not just care though.
I don't really care about the money. And since I don't seem to see researchers complaining about money, I think they have enough and are content with their compensation.
Respect isn't really so important as having the public be informed on scientific issues. That, I believe, is a higher priority. As for the how? Scientists could help make research more accessible via open-source publications with simplified summaries. I would also push for science reporters with greater scientific literacy and discourage misrepresentation or exaggeration of the research.