[maratd]

> Doubling the number of competent-but-not-superstar scientists would about double the marginal discovery rate of science, assuming the scientist-as-prospector model.

Right. I reject that assumption. Because science has nothing to do with luck. You provided zero evidence to suggest that it does.

I would posit that there is substantial skill and talent involved in properly positioning yourself to be one of the "founders of a new field". It has nothing to do with luck.

Since it has nothing to do with luck, doubling or tripling the number of individuals who don't have the capacity to properly position themselves changes nothing. It just wastes resources on useless fields that produce nothing valuable.