Interesting points. I think you're being slightly too bitter / cynical regarding the "how it is now" section. Certainly, my own upbringing included logic, rea

Interesting points. I think you're being slightly too bitter / cynical regarding the "how it is now" section. Certainly, my own upbringing included logic, reasoning, and questioning things, although I suspect many parents feel that this kind of thing might undermine their authority. My siblings and I were even provided with (at the time) prohibitively expensive Commodore 64s to foster our own "research" and exploration, leading us to discover (or rather, stumble upon) basic programming before our teens. And yes, a single counter-example might not mean much, but I've seen many others with similar, fortunate upbringings. I suspect a similar thing applies to your "system" comments. First, I'd add "re-inventing things" to the list of stuff we'd like to avoid. This is a big one; in my experience most people don't seem to have an idea about how deeply things have been researched in various directions already. As a simple example, I recently had a colleague re-invent the concept of a consumer price index, and pitch it as something brand new. As time goes on, this will just get worse and worse. In this sense, I'd add the ability to review the state of research in a particular area, the ability to perform and document research in a way that's repeatable, and these types of things to the wish-list. It just seems to me that most people pushing for more innovation in research don't seem to value these things very much. EDIT: So really, the question for me would be whether the current approach of upbringing as well as strict research career paths do more harm (by stifling innovation) than good (by preventing people from doing bad science). Who knows.