Researchers operate on money. They write grant proposals to get funded. Those grants typically specify their objectives in such a way that the outcomes are limi

Researchers operate on money. They write grant proposals to get funded. Those grants typically specify their objectives in such a way that the outcomes are limited to a range that is satisfying to the funder. If you take grant money and come up with results that the grant maker does not like they will not give you anymore grants. This creates a feedback loop in which compliant researchers are fed and independent researchers are starved. The peer review group then gets dominated by those who are good at making the relatively small pool of major grant makers happy. I work in tech now. I see orders of magnitude more honest debate in software engineering than in academia. On a tech team a Linus or a Steve Jobs can win, even though they may have some personal imperfections, they deliver major products. Winners in academia tend to be those who are best at working the social and administrative game. Questioning the herd is not a viable career strategy.