I think another problem not discussed in the article is the "manufactured consensus" phenomenon where well funded labs can populate a particular niche with grad

I think another problem not discussed in the article is the "manufactured consensus" phenomenon where well funded labs can populate a particular niche with grad students and researchers who are all working from the same theoretical framework. This creates a feedback loop of ever increasing funding and publishing for this ever growing group. Any researcher who does not subscribe to this false consensus will find it almost impossible to get funded or published. Thus those with radical ideas are kept out of the system. You see this in many of areas scientific research (e.g. viticulture, climatology, linguistics...)