This is really fascinating. It seems there's an interfacing problem at a level, with a sort of depth-expectation on one end of the problem (real-world / technology application), and a more exploratory breadth-expectation on the other (pure academia / science). It'd be cool to develop some standards to create a sort of bridge between the two.

On the breadth end there may be a need for a sort of "contract of depth commitment" to provide insurance against the flighty hijinks of the ever-expanding mind, and at the real-world level you need a sort of "grant of exploration" which allows academia to bring its own type of surface-level one-night-stand concern or even ADHD to the game. Without the latter there's probably too much risk of repeating history while someone else is blazing the trails you won't try.

Anyway thanks for that comment, it's really interesting.