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