I have a big problem with the conclusion of this article: They start off and continue with correct observations of failures of the creditation system,... only

I have a big problem with the conclusion of this article: They start off and continue with correct observations of failures of the creditation system,... only to end up concluding with a moralizing of the inidividual. A systemic problem needs a systemic solution. What should this Prasher have done when his grant was refused? Put a gun to the heads of the reviewers? What should the other pilot besides Lubitz have done? Rammed the door a little harder? It's also totally disingenious to compare with and portray Darlene Love's story as one of "all's well that ends well", how different would her life (and her relatives, and perhaps the black community) have been if she had been credited appropriately from the start? There should be some kind of "told you so" factor resulting in feedback to grant approvers... We should experiment more with different credit metrics. We should have some kind of priority blinded timestamp service, so people can comfortably collaborate without paranoia (whenever you have an insight, however vague or unsure you are, first get it timestamped, then communicate the idea with your colleagues, even if most of those ideas end up nowhere in practice), ... The system should be such that it recognizes its own mistakes and compensates for it, it should actively try and identify inappropriate accreditations, rejections and try and contact the rejects, make crystal clear that the system acknowledges its mistake, and offer to reintegrate the individual... this is a breach of trust from the perspective of the individual after all!