I considered this, but if you assume that the scientists don't benefit from science functioning properly, then they're playing a zero sum game with other scient

I considered this, but if you assume that the scientists don't benefit from science functioning properly, then they're playing a zero sum game with other scientists --- they're simply competing with each other for a fixed pool of resources. That was what I meant. You could argue that a prisoner's dilemma view of it is more realistic. In this view, the scientists all desperately do want to get it right, but they know they can't because they'll be punished for doing it by their peers, who'll seize the opportunity to get ahead at their expense. This model is plausible too, but it's different from the one I suggested. So it's not actually a terminological difference.