> So their breakthrough insight had more to do with them being in the right place at the right time in history

No, that's just not correct. There were hundreds of people trying to get there and there were a ton of totally wrong theories with people trying to convince others to take them seriously. Not everyone was engaging in activity that could have ever solved the problem, very few were. Why do you think some scientists seem to have dozens or hundreds of major discoveries, but virtually all scientists have no major discoveries? Just luck? They steal them and don't get caught?

If there were hundreds of people trying to get there, and another got there before Watson and Crick, would they deserve fame and Watson and Crick the equivalent obscurity? Its not that Watson and Crick weren't brilliant and driven - it's that they were part of a larger collective movement that is undervalued. And I would argue that their contributions were dramatically overvalued partly because they were immersed in a culture which overvalues, and motivated them to overvalue, a very heroic "great man" narrative. If they hadn't "discovered" the structure of DNA, how long do you think it would've been before someone else did?

Who said anything about what people deserve?

I'm not making a 'great man' narrative. I'm just applying the Pareto Principle. 80% of research output will be by 20% of researchers. of that 80%, 80% will be by 20% of the 20%. so about 4% of researchers will be responsible for 64% of research output. This turns out to be surprisingly accurate.

It's not a 'great man' narrative, it's just the statement of long verified statistics.

I wonder if you find your position of "there are lots of smart people and success in research is mostly luck" attractive because you would like to believe you could have been a great researcher if you were more lucky?