[therzathegza]

I thought the 1% figure as encompassing all science. As far as CS is concerned, I don't really know. As far as bioscience, leaps and bounds are made all the time. Electronic technology is a feedback loop that for every innovation you get there, you reap several in a diverse field such as biology. Live cell imaging by itself was revolutionized by discovery of fluorescent molecules in jellyfish. Nevermind the offshoots as mentioned, sequencing tech, PCR discovery. Just so many. I think 9-5 scientists is a very VERY pessimistic look on how science is run.

Did we mention lasers?! Lasers!

The publish or perish model is certainly a thing, but the peer review system as it exists does in fact notice if all you publish is crappy review papers. This depends a lot more on the community of researchers in that field. The more recent argument in many labs is "Can't it be both?". A longer term project run in parallel with smaller discoveries or even reviews of things in the field. Don't underestimate the utility of a good review paper either. Many people don't understand how science at the bench is done, and it gets reduced to these sorts of apocalyptic cliches. Fields come and go, that's how the sausage gets made.