I'm guessing that it's getting down voted because it implies that the solution to bad science is to stop doing science. It's unfortunate if the poster was tryin

I'm guessing that it's getting down voted because it implies that the solution to bad science is to stop doing science. It's unfortunate if the poster was trying to say something different. There are other solutions to "fixing" science: you demand more openly published data, look more critically at peer review, reexamine the tenure process, incentivize open source development, etc. It's possible that the poster was suggesting some of these things, but that wasn't clear. Industrial research is great if you have a product you can sell, but there's a huge swath of science research where that doesn't work: you can't monetize JWST images or LHC data. Zuckerberg, whatever you think of him, isn't going to dump all his money into something that won't pay out at all in the near future, and will be shared by everyone when it does.