What relevant measure would you use to support your claim that 'science is hold back'? And what arguments support your claim that scientists are by far the root

What relevant measure would you use to support your claim that 'science is hold back'? And what arguments support your claim that scientists are by far the root cause to this? 'scientific progress' is a paradox. There is no absolute way of measuring the velocity at which science advances. You can't translate this into a value on a speed-o-meter and then make assertions based on what the dial says. The entire point of science is the discovery of new knowledge and insights about reality. It's the pursuit of trying to know the unknown. Inherently, it's not possible to know up front (a) how long it will take to validate your thesis and (b) whether validating your thesis will yield the result you hoped to find (i.e. a cure for cancer) Looking back at science in the past and then comparing that to today's state of affairs is hindsight bias. "But, it used to be that scientists got more funding to do research. Think about the Race to the Moon!" But then you forget that science isn't practiced in a vacuum. Never has. Scientists happen to work in earnest on particular questions because the external circumstances are aligned in a way that enables - or disenfranchises - them to work on those questions. Older research always predicates current research. For example, there would have been little point to assume that machine learning could have been a thing in the late 1800's as neither Von Neumann nor Turing had come around to set the stage. Science begets science, and you can't rush that retroactively. Then there's politics and economics. Full time science comes at a premium. Science happens where there's money. Either through public grants, in academic institutions or large institutions with a sizable R&D section. As such, the type of science that dominates an era depends largely on the zeitgeist. Reducing science to pure quantitative research or the empirical method is intellectual dishonest as well. Any research is based on a foundation of need, curiosity and imagination. As such, the number of papers published or conferences attended are very much skewed reflection of the generated value.