Who would have thought that a ragtag group of entertainers could have an impact on the biggest social and political questions of the day? And yet not once, but twice, this has happened: LiveAid in 1985 and Live8 in 2005.

This clout is not something to which we in the research community can hope (or need) to aspire to. But we should aspire to a higher profile than we currently enjoy. Consider these data points:

A recent poll of the Top 100 Americans[1] included just four scientists, Einstein, Sagan, Salk, and Tesla (although this could be increased to seven if we include Edison, Bell, and Franklin). A similar BBC project[2] yielded a healthier 12 scientist in the list of "100 Great British Heroes." Before you get too excited, however, what was striking about that is that only one – Stephen Hawking – is alive. It seems that scientists can be memorable, but only one of us is. To hammer home that point, in another poll teenagers in the UK floundered when asked to name a single contemporary scientist, producing suggestions such as Madonna, Chemical Ali, and their science teacher.[3] And in the same poll, only 7% considered scientists to be "cool or fun."

Eric Lander in wrap-around shades and a black trench coat isn't going to carry the same punch as Bono, and I don't see Tony Blair cuddling up to Craig Venter on MTV like he did with Bob Geldof. But we don't want or need to have the impact of the rock fraternity on world opinion. We just need researchers to have a higher profile than the current, pitiful, low.

Why? How many reasons do you want? Science's future is at stake – we need to make a more attractive career path for today's youngsters if we want to keep building knowledge. Right now students appreciate that science is important but mostly they don't enjoy it. So changes in education are crucial, but the development of credible role models that are clever and cool will help no end. Scientist trading cards, anyone?

There's a wider societal issue, too. We need an informed public if social policies are to be decided on reasonable and rational grounds. Everything from the future of healthcare, and how it's paid for, to taxation on fuel, could benefit from a wider appreciation of the underlying science. Not to mention evolution versus intelligent design and stem cells. Right or wrong, people respond to charismatic figures, as do our politicians.

And speaking of politicians, there's the question of research funding in the short term. With representative scientists helping set the news agenda, voters are more likely to bring pressure for the support of science to bear upon their representatives.

The first tentative steps are being taken to develop new scientist personalities. FameLab, a talent competition in the UK for the "new face of science" threw up a clear winner in Dr Mark Lewney, a patent examiner.[4] Of course we want more than style, we also want substance, so we need our scientific leadership to step up.

And we're also to have a Top 100 of our own – the Top 100 Biotechnologists are being voted for as we speak – go to https://www.cordiaconvention.com/page.cfm/Action=Form/FormID=7/t=m to have your say.

Those seem like some kind of a start, and there are probably others. Who knows? Perhaps one day a million-odd crowd will gather on the steps of Philadelphia's art museum to hear talks from the great scientist-orators of the day, in support of some momentous cause.