When I was in grad school I had done measurements of the magnetic anisotropy of amorphous compounds. I had found an interesting link between the structure and t

When I was in grad school I had done measurements of the magnetic anisotropy of amorphous compounds. I had found an interesting link between the structure and the magnetic properties which is surprising since the material is amorphous, the material properties should be isotropic yet these had a preferred magnetization axis. During the discussions of these results with my advisor I was told in very clear terms that he would not let me publish results that contradicted a paper of his from the 1980s. I didn't push back, because I had no power and I just wanted to get the fuck out of there and start making money after being scammed out of 5 years of my life where I poured a lot of effort and got shit pay. I lost respect for my advisor and I was stunned by how un-scientific his response was when it came to correcting his 1980s results. My measurements were more accurate and were strongly supported by structural measurements he never did and couldn't do back then. But he was more interested in protecting his "legacy" of his paper with 13 citations. So petty and small. I dropped those efforts and was able to get out completely obviating those results, never mentioned them in my thesis even. Anyway, my point is that I'm not surprised that scientific results are lame, vanilla, uninspired. When the committees that decide on what gets funded are all 65+ dinosaurs stuck in their ways, very few disruptive ideas will be founded because you're disrupting the very research that got the committee members clout and recognition. As they say, change comes a funeral at a time.