The evolution of “leadersheep”

Starting with the premise that science shall not become an extension of business or industry,  I share the concern that the issue of leadership in science needs further discussion and, specially, exchange on the matter with non-scientific areas. The classical figure of a leader is the alpha male; he who knows the way, provides, dictates and protects. But, in science -which I see as a quest for and into the unknown- does he really know the way? Is there only one way? The XXth century has demonstrated that such archetype excess leads to the destruction of the environment, including ourselves. The alternative is not the alpha female; that is even worse as the feminine qualities (that lie both in men and women) remain still unrealized. Furthermore, if we are to take the current leadership model seriously, and if we attend to the numbers, I wonder whether there should be less emphasis on leadership and much more on “followersheep”. But I believe in the potential of the individual and have faith in the intelligence of the group. So, where are we to seek motivation, within or without? As science is looking for excellence (and hoping this is just a postmodern euphemism for Truth), I think we are ready for the next step in the evolution of leadership. Human history testifies its course: from the word of God, to the King, to a handful of lieges, to ministers elected by the “demos” every four years, to hopefully the governance of us, in us, by us. The “we” finally leaving the status of an ideal and becoming a tangible reality. The ego dissolving, the self emerging, and the community built as a hologram: the whole contained in the part, rather than the sum (or the weigthed-average!) of the parts.