> You basically have to be on the spectrum or very, very diligent.

...and be independently wealthy (or have wealthy benefactors). Science lives and dies by funding. We may be regressing to pre-20th century science, where most of the big discoveries were made by rich people who could afford to do science all day everyday.

Hmm, I do not see this at all. 40 years in neuroscience and genetics and it is far larger and more open community now that is also much more open to diversity than it was in 1978.

Hundreds of collaborators and none have supported their own research.

I am sympathetic to many of the ideas in this thread, but view many comments as too skeptical of the process and sociology of science and of career paths in science. The high entry barrier and generally low incomes compared to alternatives means an enrichment for individuals with genuine intellectual curiosity. Yes, publishing papers and getting grants involves some gaming, but that is also true of almost all forms of communication and interaction. Science is usually a game with a good cause.

Over the next 50 years we will get far beyond our still primitive methods of publishing key data and our analysis (aka papers). You can see the transition already in the form of web services, Jupyter notebooks, R/Shiny, Pluto, etc. Soon most core publications will become living, growing structures instead sad mausoleums. Data and code quality will become much more important when data and workflows and logic are highly visible and highly granular in a new post-FAIR+ science world.