I am sympathetic to many of the ideas in this thread, but view many comments as too skeptical of the process and sociology of science and of career paths in sci

I am sympathetic to many of the ideas in this thread, but view many comments as too skeptical of the process and sociology of science and of career paths in science. The high entry barrier and generally low incomes compared to alternatives means an enrichment for individuals with genuine intellectual curiosity. Yes, publishing papers and getting grants involves some gaming, but that is also true of almost all forms of communication and interaction. Science is usually a game with a good cause. Over the next 50 years we will get far beyond our still primitive methods of publishing key data and our analysis (aka papers). You can see the transition already in the form of web services, Jupyter notebooks, R/Shiny, Pluto, etc. Soon most core publications will become living, growing structures instead sad mausoleums. Data and code quality will become much more important when data and workflows and logic are highly visible and highly granular in a new post-FAIR+ science world.