This is a mixed bag; While the author never really articulates the titular "paradox" some of the background is good, but the "solutions" part is not well argued

This is a mixed bag; While the author never really articulates the titular "paradox" some of the background is good, but the "solutions" part is not well argued and perhaps not well thought out. For example: > we need to specifically empower some people to be an antagonist, with the explicit role of trying to refute, attack, and discredit other scientists and their theories This is not a new role; it's been a career approach for scientists for basically the history of science. Presenting this as a new idea rather than basically a question of incentives draws focus away from the more fundamental questions I think. Another one: > After all, by the time of a Phase III clinical trial submitted to the FDA,... Bringing up Phase III trials was a great opportunity to engage with the issue of cost vs. confidence which would have been interesting - instead is offered only as data on the publication rates of null results (again an issue mostly of incentives I believe, although that does related to the cost issue of course) Phase III trials are typically eye-wateringly expensive and partially for that reason imply the existence of a funnel of Phase 0, I, II experiments before them to make sense. The structural, financial, and opportunity costs of doing this are very much in scope for this articles topic but aren't engaged with. Ironically, the entire suggestions section reads to me at least a bit dogmatically.