How is the current system of academic incentives different from the system of a few decades ago?
Second, we've left the century of physics and entered the century of biology. Most of what you read about, regarding the "reproducibility crisis" and so forth, has to do with the medical and behavioral sciences, which have grown in relation to the physical sciences. It's to the point where, when somebody generalizes about "science research," it's likely to be about life science, and a few of us physical scientists realize that we're an insignificant exception.
I wouldn't say that life science is better or worse than physical science, but that it introduces a new set of problems that may take a few decades to address. One difference is that the life sciences seem more dependent (for now at least) on weak statistics.
Disclosure: I'm a physicist in industry.
Somewhere there was drawn a line - education for work, and education for science.
Nearly everyone think both are the same. Leading to thinking publish or perish being ok even if it's shit work.
The problem is that in the current system (based on publishing as much as possible quickly and at prestigious conferences) there are few incentives to do this. Instead people learn to game the system. Academics need to relax a bit, but they can't, since there is so much competition.