I would have a hard time swallowing the argument that we pay scientists too much, or that society respects them too much. A distant observer might think this could be the case since, from their perspective, what they see as "scientists" are celebrated professors, showered with job stability, upper-middle-class incomes and book deals. But those lucky sods are vastly outnumbered by postdocs and tenure-track faculty, who work thankless hours at minimal pay and who could put their brains to work anywhere else for better reward. Those are the "typical scientist," on average, these days, and if we paid them any less they could barely afford to eat.

The problem is the imbalance- a postdoc really really wants to get tenure someday, because the only alternative is for his career to peter out and to end up working ignominiously in industry (as a second-rate software engineer, most likely.) And the number of tenure positions that could possibly be available is an order of magnitude fewer than the number of smart people competing for them. So he'll possibly "cut corners" to get there, despite the devotion to his field that made him choose that career and not something reasonable, like finance or software engineering. Academia is tenure or bust- there's no stable middle option.

There is a correction under way as people start to realize that academia is no longer a feasible career path, in the same way that the NFL isn't. So I'm hopeful that things will stabilize in regards to scientific integrity regardless- but, then we'll have to figure out who is going to do the science when we can't rely on an army of poorly paid geniuses.

I won't deny the reality of modern day science worker. But the fact of they are paid/respected at minimum does not justify their motivation. Just like a typical minimum wage worker is not doing the work out of pleasure, a typical postdoc is not pursuing a career of pure knowledge. Of course there are some component in it, but from what I see, they are pursuing a career -- a tenure as you put it, an end result that is secure in income and high in status of respect and rich in freedom -- even when that is more of an illusion. So the bottom line is I don't believe there are as much people as many scientists today that are motivated by curiosity alone. They are pursuing money and fame, even when that is an illusion (to certain extent).

The current science career is more of an engineering career, where people have clear goals with constant feasibility assessment and motivated and encouraged to seek short cuts.

So I am not saying we are paying scientists too much. I am saying scientists don't need to be paid, only need to be sustained. Not a many people would be happy for a career that is merely sustained, but not many people are truly born to be a scientist -- think about Einstein being happy at a patent office.

EDIT:

So I agree that look at the way today we do science, it is of concern. However, I think that is largely a mislabeling. Today's science career is more of a engineering practice; and look at the way we do engineering, we are doing fine today. Some place some people build a shoddy bridge, it is something of gossip, but not much of concern.

Think about it: science is not supposed to produce a product (medicine in this context) but it is supposed to answer some questions (not given by the society but of one's own). To answer a demand or solve a question (with a belief it can be answered), that is engineering.

Of course, engineering is important. And there is nothing wrong for a few people pursuing science on the side while doing their engineer jobs.

Ok, the vision of scientists as an ascetic class only appealing to the dyed-in-the-wool seekers of knowledge has some appeal. But, there's a problem there, too- sure, Einstein would still have published his breakthroughs, but many of the thousands of researchers whose works were the basis for his wouldn't have. The pace of scientific progress we're accustomed to now is the product of the work of thousands upon thousands of scientists; the contribution of celebrated geniuses like Einstein are dramatic but represent a rounding error compared to the whole rate of progress. We need a way to recruit and retain the rank-and-file ordinary-human researchers as well, and that requires compensation somewhat proportional to the effort they're putting in.

I wouldn't go out and say Einstein is a rounding error :).

When we say science progress is built on top of giant's shoulder, that giant don't have to be and often is not just other/previous scientists. Engineering, culture, or even witch crafting all have contributed to science.

We need a lot of rank-and-file ordinary-human doing their ordinary works out of ordinary motivations, they will provide the basis necessary for the a few true scientists to question the known and explore the unknown.