Mixed feelings. Yes, popularizing is an incredibly important task and should  
be highly rated... but should a "Distinguished Fellow" also require 
original thinking? I am not trying to judge Heilbroner's work, but to ask a  
more general question. 
 
Let's assume that "distinguished fellowships" are a scarce good (they should  
be scarce in order to be "dignity-enhancing"). What would you prefer as a  
distinguished fellow, an original thinker or a superior popularizer if you  
cannot have both? The Galbraiths or Friedmans or Krugmans (those that  
combine both qualities) are rare. Usually talent is also subject to division  
of labor gains. 
 
(Once again, I'm asking a general question not even related to  
Heilbroner's work). 
 
Javier Finkman