[jltsiren]

I think it's the opposite. Science stagnates because the system focuses too much on justifications and practically useful results and too little on curiosity.

For a few decades, the prevailing school of thought in public administration has focused on justifications. You must always justify how the public will benefit from the proposed use of money. Then you must report that you used the money for justified reasons. The administrators will also audit you to ensure that you didn't use the money for frivolous purposes.

As a consequence, you can't get funding for studying something you find interesting. Instead, you must always justify how your research will benefit the public. If you manage to get funding, you must spend a lot of time reporting how you used that money and what it did enable you to do. Those reporting requirements are also one of the major reasons for the administrative bloat in the academia.

The general public does not want to fund BS research, and science stagnates largely as an unintended consequence of that.

[Fomite]

I once had someone told me their organization "Didn't do curiosity driven research". I have never lost interest in a long-term position faster.

Having a position that doesn't require me to peg everything to a practical deliverable has done wonders for my ability to actually chase down ideas.