I agree that governments should stop using metrics to evaluate science in this way, and instead qualitatively review research output. It's obvious that citatio

I agree that governments should stop using metrics to evaluate science in this way, and instead qualitatively review research output. It's obvious that citation counts are open to manipulation (e.g. through self-citation and encouraging citations from others via various mechanisms) but there's also a very large factor that can't be easily quantified: an enormous amount of good will has been lost in the system. Many scientists who are interested mainly in satisfying their curiosity and contributing to society resent the top-down mismanagement of science in the UK and US. They see a system where those who play political games do well, but the smartest, most dedicated, and passionate researchers are often sidelined or ignored because they do not spend the requisite time playing the political system to artificially boost their reputations. Many times I've seen very talented academics with huge potential leaving academia as they were passed up for promotion, left on a temporary contract indefinitely, or neglected in other ways. Strangely enough, I think that if you don't have pressure to climb the ladder (e.g. a family), then the current system offers great opportunities to do outstanding science. If you choose to stay low on the ladder and spend the vast majority of your time actually focusing on research problems, you can get far more actual research done than those chasing promotion or esteem. And because so many people are focused on their citation count, or some political game, the competition isn't as strong as it should be - you can make real advances if you quietly focus and leave the politicians to fight each other.