I am sympathetic to your argument, but I would say that the quality dimension is also heavily corrupted, especially in basic science where people rarely retrace

I am sympathetic to your argument, but I would say that the quality dimension is also heavily corrupted, especially in basic science where people rarely retrace experiments, and there is no requirement for a "working product". The word "superstar" labs is itself loaded. Scientific discovery has always been heavily influenced by chance, and the fact that certain labs regularly publish in high profile journals has more to do with political connections rather than the intrinsic quality or impact of their work.