Do you believe yourself to be smarter to the average scientist?
How do you think the average intelligence in various professions compares to the average intelligence of scientists?
What role do you think scientists and non-scientists should have in policy decisions regarding science? How do you think people's perceptions of their intelligence, and the intelligence of scientists, affects their opinions on these roles?
Do you think the monetary compensation or respect to scientists is in line with their contributions to society?
Do you think there should be a move to increase or decrease the average intelligence, monetary compensation, or respect which is awarded to scientists? How should we go about to achieve this?
Most scientists are not particularly clever. They just do their work like anyone else. On the other hand, scientists should have a lot of say in policy. It's not that they're more clever, but because they know better. If science can give us an answer about a subject, then it is unreasonable to trust uninformed opinion over our best scientific knowledge. I would even deliberately avoid having anyone in office who dares to think that prejudice trumps scientific fact, unlike the system we have today in which ignorance of science seems a prerequisite for office.
Scientists do not earn enough money. Science is the major way in which cultures advance which can be attributed to a specific part of the workforce. Moral progress, which we all discussed recently in a different thread, isn't done by some dedicated workers.
Something that we look to to solve all our problems, treat our diseases and indulge our laziness, on which our societies run, should not be a career choice for the dull-minded workaholics who can't network their way into a high-flying economy-crashing job as a City executive.
As for how to make scientists more respected, it needs to be with reporting and journalism and in pay. Pay people enough and a large proportion of the population will respect that career choice, as well as aspiring to it. If journalists actually engaged in journalism, rather than formulaic, childish writing, then science would come off slightly better in popular stories.
Every time I hear someone say "look at what science got wrong!" I cringe. Some journalist somewhere decided it would be easier to write a gloating column about how an authority that we respect (science) has made a mistake. It's low, easy pickings. Stories gloating about how it was wrong make for easy writing and draw readers.
The simple question "Through what method do we know that it was wrong?" should clear up any doubt about the necessity of relying on science. Journalism shouldn't be about writing whatever is easiest, but using skill and talent to take on hard tasks but make the writing entertaining nonetheless.