I think this article mixes together and perhaps confuses a few different things. Stated problems: - scientists are not equipped by their training to be able t

I think this article mixes together and perhaps confuses a few different things. Stated problems: - scientists are not equipped by their training to be able to tackle "big" challenges such as meteorites and pandemics. - "hyper-competitiveness" for grants - extreme specialisation means that people can't communicate. And the solution is to learn about: 1. epistemology 2. quantitative skills 3. ethics I certainly don't disagree with the value of learning about these things. But while epistemology and quantitative skills might help make the scientific process more rigorous, I don't see that it will change competitiveness or the inability to tackle big challenges or deter specialisation. And while ethics is always a valuable thing to think about, I don't think it helps scientific rigor or any of the author's stated problems. Overall I found the piece a bit muddled.