Significant intellect and a desire to exercise that in significant work? Yes.
Deep interest in a field and a wish to explore that further? Yes. (In the sense that many such people seem capable of maintaining multiple such interests.)
Interest in complex work and ability to hold large datasets in mind? Yes.
Drive to rise above others and push for achievement? Yes.
The more I look, the more it seems that a major factor working against scientist partiicpation in public debate generally and politics more specifically is a strong pervading trend of anti-intellectuallism. In science they can know that, by and large, if they back up their assertions with rigorous testing and data, their viewpoint will at the very least be taken seriously and very likely accepted. Whereas, by current trends at least, in politics their assertion would be rubbished as elitist and talked down with an incoherent anecdote.
Where, in that system, is the motivation for the genuinely capable and informed to use their abilities for the public good?