Scientific progress has three drivers.  First, basic research is the engine, chugging along, steadily and unspectacularly moving toward short-term goals - purify this antibody, identify that protein.  Necessary but not necessarily sexy.  Second, inspiration provides the punctuated epiphanies that shift the paradigm to a heretofore unforseen level.  Huxley's (approximate) exclamation when first learning of Darwin's theory of natural selection,  "how stupid of me not to have thought of it."  Eureka moments.  The third, however, is often neglected - the popularization of science.  We need scientists who can do it and teach it - the Sagans, Goulds, Dawkins, Weiss's, and Judsons (Olivia Judson - world's sexiest evolutionary biologist; not a ton of competition).  I read a quote this week by David Foster Wallace;  it said, in effect, that as science grew more complicated and specialized it moved further from the average person and risked becoming totally outside the experience of all but those in academia's inner circle (there were lots of DFW quotes this week, tragically).  We need interpreters to explain the runes for us.  And we need our leaders to know a thing or two about the scientific method, to be able to intelligently discuss basic concepts.  How to achieve this?  Somehow we need a new enlightenment, a renewed excitement about the wonders around us.  That sounds anodyne as I type it but I really fear the nostalgic backward-looking of the past 30 years has blunted our curiosity.  I'll confess, I blame Reagan.