[james_s_tayler]

Isn't he basically saying the economics of research works up to a point but there is an inflection point after which it's broken?

And he's saying you can't just keep the model as is, but you need to make certain adjustments to the incentive structures.

It's becoming blindly obvious that this is the case in psychology at least with the replication crisis and the "publish or perish" mentality. We can see these things playing out.

Does the economics of the scientific machine need to be revisited and tweaked? I'd say there is a good conversation to be had about that. I can already see a little evidence of a minor self-correction, but given economics drives absolutely everything then yeah I'd say it's likely there are some changes that would produce different results that might be better than what the current system is producing. Though it's not easy to compute ahead of time whether changes themselves would have unintended consequences.

He probably needs to spend more time trying to explain things to 5 year olds to offset his "I am so smrt" persona.