> the primary driver of this is the promotion and funding structure of science

Well, yeah, obviously. I'm saying that structure is there because it's a holdover from previous generations where novel results were easier to obtain.

The funny thing is the results where gained either through paced pondering or by ridiculously talented individuals like von Neuman. Big science for non-applied fields is an oxymoron. Once a principle is figured out you can chuck a ton of people at it. But before that arrives, you can't pretend everyone is von Neuman and put them racing against each others. It seems there is no room for time and craftmanship in the publish-or-perish approach to science.

Have you read this?

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science

If we are to measure science by its technological results, then we would judge Arrhenius' paper on global warming to be a failure because it didn't result in any iPhones being sold. The author illustrates a difference in value systems, but it's sort of inherent to those that one can't meaningfully argue one against the other. I think the problem is with our incentives, not our institutions.

No, I haven't. Thanks for the link.