First of all, criticizing science is like criticizing democracy. Yes, it's flawed, but still far better than anything else we've tried so far! If you look at

First of all, criticizing science is like criticizing democracy. Yes, it's flawed, but still far better than anything else we've tried so far! If you look at the typical application for funding, you'll see questions that basically prod you to explain why your research/students/etc. are exceptional/revolutionary/ground-breaking. Everything must look like a Nobel prize waiting to happen if you're going to have a chance at beating out everyone else making the same application (and exaggerations). It's utterly ridiculous! It's as if thousands of guitarists were auditioning at the same time and, in an effort to be heard, each has cranked their amp to 11. The result is a cacophony where even each individual sounds awful because of the distortion. If everyone dialed it down to 5 things would be bearable, but there's always someone willing to nudge it up to 6 or 7... A nice long list of high profile publications is great to hype when your amp is set to 11. If you have published many papers in high impact factor journals (again, often by inflating the significance of your work), you must be worth funding! Perhaps scientific funding needs to be awarded in a manner that is more... scientific. Heck, perhaps funding agencies should reserve a certain percentage of their funding specifically for reproduction of results. Currently, if you apply for a grant to check other peoples work, people doing original research will win absolutely every single time. Unfortunately, the preference for original research goes right to the very top of governments. Politicians want brilliant nobel price winners, not competent fact-checkers.