I don't see how that problem can be solved, especially in fields where you need lots of money to do research. There are limited funds, and nobody knows what is

I don't see how that problem can be solved, especially in fields where you need lots of money to do research. There are limited funds, and nobody knows what is good science and what is bad science by just judging the science in front of them, especially if it is new and original science. Even very good scientists, experts in their respective field, will not be able to tell great science from bad science when reviewing a grant application or a paper. Because usually, such a review would take too much time and effort. If the reviewed paper claims to solve a famous problem, and is done by a famous researcher, then reviewers can justify the resources for a proper review. Otherwise they most often will not. So in the end it is up to the researcher themselves to come up with the funds for their research by convincing someone with money. That can be the government, but doesn't have to be. Actually, it is probably NOT going to be the government, because they are just playing some sort of game in which they have no skin, and the money will go to people who play the game better. So it will be easier to find someone else who has some intuition about the problem, or about you, or both.