But you also can't prevent people from learning about how the world works: the rewards and penalties that will affect their careers.
Even if you could, teaching students a myth about what a career in science is like would basically be malpractice.
But does this make sense? Can a scientist survive without doing this? Can a scientist get very far without results right now?
Is this a problem of the scientist, or perhaps the social/economic expectation?
New results are significantly more difficult and expensive to achieve in modern science, as the easier stuff has already been conquered in centuries and decades past.
The harder problems that science now works on means that distinguishing between actual results and incorrect conclusions is also much more difficult.
The growth of science as a percentage of the population and economy has also finally slowed down a few decades ago, after centuries of rocket-like growth. It is now a maturing enterprise, instead of a high-growth startup.
This means increased competition for resources and mindshare from those wanting to do science. Not surprisingly, all proxy measures and heuristics for evaluating scientific success are thus more likely to be abused.
I don't think we have fully adapted to these fundamental changes.
Disclaimer: I'm not a historian or researcher, but I've heard aspects of the above from a variety of sources, and it makes a lot of sense to me.
Of course, that's much easier for people in STEM than it is for social scientists.
Science is about finding approximations of truth that are least influenced by the local context.
The whims of a particular scientist's ego (especially if you are that scientist!) make for a rather nasty contextual influence.
Of course, this is a difficult ask, but constantly striving towards this ideal is absolutely essential.