Both GH and TFA are raising a pretty classic "structure of scientific progress" trade-off: communities that are well organized around specific {theories, datase

Both GH and TFA are raising a pretty classic "structure of scientific progress" trade-off: communities that are well organized around specific {theories, datasets, metrics, hardware, software} greatly accelerate progress within the box, and exclude progress outside it. The way around has always been the hard work of creating your own box - ideally starting with questions, then theories, then methods, and so on. What's not available is instant attention/accolades/funding for work that presents beautiful methods without first building a community that cares about the problems those methods solve and agrees on a definition of success. So, folks with radically new ideas should focus on rallying others to agree on that definition. I see a lot of good work these days introducing new problem definitions and datasets for that purpose.