I think your interpretation of the situation is a bit off. The 90% number, best I can tell, comes from a rather limited meta study which found the papers they t

I think your interpretation of the situation is a bit off. The 90% number, best I can tell, comes from a rather limited meta study which found the papers they tried to replicate had a low repoducablity rate. Note this doesn't immediately make them "junk" just adds another data point in support of the null hypothesis or in some cases points to the existence of confounding factors [0]. Looking at research literature at the single paper level is the realm of pulp science and media puff pieces. In terms of the larger field having a broad corpus to check your results against gives context to an experiment's result and makes it easier to weed out outliers. It's my opinion that a funding system that ends up with more noise than ideal is still a better state than just giving the reins to the pundits of the world who make conclusions without even pretending to have any experimental foundation. [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...