More staff scientist positions.

Academia, especially in the US and Canada, only has one viable long-term job: a faculty position. Everything else is ostensibly “training” for that job and there’s increasing pressure to make that transition as quickly as possible, in part because the low pay and stability of the other positions.

This is stupid. Since professors produce trainees, the competition gets exponentially worse. At the same time, using mostly new workers that are constantly churning over makes it hard to do good research. This is exacerbated by the emphasis on first/last author publications, which disincentivizes division of labor and teamwork. Furthermore, studies have found that outcome for the trainees are better when a mix of senior people are around.

Despite this, the NIH funds virtually no staff scientists: only one institute (NCI) has a staff scientist mechanism and it’s very small (~50?) compared to the rest of the program. Give people longer contracts (5 years) renewable bases on the output of the teams they enable, and everyone would win.

100% agree with this. If we seek true breakthroughs, we need highly experienced and focused teams working together on specific problems. These teams should be comprised primarily of staff scientists, like they have at the national laboratories like Lawrence. Given how high of a priority the US government places on funding biomedical research, it doesn't make sense for the vast majority of funding to be allocated to principal investigators who count that research project as only one of their numerous job responsibilities. Nor does it make sense for that work to be executed by under-supported postdocs and technicians. Instead, cultivate a career track that goes from grad student to junior -> senior staff scientist. Prioritize positions other than academic faculty with continuity and the ability to focus primarily on making steady research advancements.

>The people expanding our scientific understanding of the world being undervalued by society

I fully expect to get downvoted for this, but maybe it is because the expansion of scientific understanding produced by academia and academics has dwindled when it comes to applications in real life. Sure I will come across click-bait articles about new research on black holes and dark matter/energy/whatever every week, but it all seems so far from industry and application.

Is that an opinion based on facts or mere impression? And if it's based on facts, would you be willing to share the source?

Further, what is it that you're implying with that statement?

Clearly it's based on impression, and not based on facts, and I gave no indication that it was. So no, I don't have a source for that.