Credit has shifted from lead researchers to the supervisory professors.
Academic structure is prevents assembly of lasting teams
The ‘leaders’ of today’s science historically have typically not provided tomorrow’s insights, and are unlikely to in the future (some do, but it is by far the minority).
Central management’s reliance on metrics is necessary because a distant bureaucracy can only ever have a scattered, low resolution image of an environment it seeks to control.
When we reward being productive over being correct or creative, phenomena such as empire building, taking credit for others work, exploitative practices, poor quality control, misleading analysis and other such problems rise.
A doubling of the science budget is not at all guaranteed to meaningfully improve the system - more money does not translate to better research
Committees cannot make exceptional decisions
‘Impact’ actually means ‘well-received by current opinion’
Structural Components of institutes
Effective institutes were focussed essentially upon what can broadly be termed visions
Effective institutes had more support staff (programmers, engineers, technicians, potentially with accompanying training degrees) and fewer postdocs/graduates