Funding replication is a great idea, but cannot solve this. It would require roughly add much funding add now goes to science merely to replicate results produ

Funding replication is a great idea, but cannot solve this. It would require roughly add much funding add now goes to science merely to replicate results produced now. That still leaves a rather hefty backlog. Moreover, the pace with which scientific output doubles is increasing. From top of my head out would be below a decade nowadays. Even if 90% of those would not need replication (new algorithms that work), then merely keeping pace would basically require 1 in 10 institutions to devote itself fully to replication studies. Even then we'd need more capacity to look at previous results - that 10% is fully needed to investigate new results. Note that this is optimistic: I'd expect the percentage of publications where a reproducibility study makes sense to be above 50%.