This matches what I saw in academia. Many non-academics seem to have this view that science is full of senior researchers with political motivations stifling g

This matches what I saw in academia. Many non-academics seem to have this view that science is full of senior researchers with political motivations stifling good ideas and gaming the grant system for personal gain. I can't say that people don't game the system, but in my experience it was very much a symptom of an already broken system. As I see it, there certainly isn't enough funding (in the US) but that's not actually the primary problem. The issue is the processes used to allocate the funding (IMO). The funding cutoffs are _extremely_ competitive (because there isn't enough to go around) and renewals are typically every 4 to 5 years, but the system doesn't seem to be designed with funding stability in mind. It creates an incredibly stressful and uncertain climate, so of course people group up and game the system to varying degrees. (I almost want to describe the climate as feast and famine, but that's not right because there doesn't seem to be much in the way of feasts - just slightly less famine.)