Everyone thinks their research is important, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Not every chair, board, or panel can fully understand every topic, especially

Everyone thinks their research is important, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Not every chair, board, or panel can fully understand every topic, especially when it's highly specialized, much less predict its impact. So often, people feel like they're being neglected when they're just not visible because they haven't communicated something to an audience they either don't recognize or don't value. They often write grants that don't explain the value of their work in a way that can be presented to people who don't already understand the value of the subject. And if they're already pessimistic about support, they won't ask for support. If they're too focused on their work and not paying attention to the new hires, they won't realize they need to talk to their department about which faculty are using which labs this semester. In general, even when faculty talk to each other, they aren't always listening - at least not beyond anything that might directly be of interest to them. And rarely does anyone ask, "How does all of this work, anyway?" In a way, you're seeing the system working. Despite Karikó being unhappy with Penn State, she was able to perform and carry out research that did not prove critical until a global pandemic, her research was able to be located, accessed, and used, and she was subsequently recognized for it. We can't reward potential. It's unfortunate that she felt unsupported by her department, but she did have personal advocates who helped to advance her, and she certainly wasn't the only researcher at Penn State - was she treated any differently to them? And being blunt, if it were obvious that her research was valuable, wouldn't it have already been done by others, making this story pointless? Is it possible to be recognized for being a hidden gem before you're found?