I don&#x27;t really see, what people mean when they &quot;agree&quot; or &quot;disagree&quot; with this article and the likes of it. Aside of expressing his own disappointment the author points out what is wrong with the academic research, that&#x27;s true. But point out what is wrong, though isn&#x27;t useless, is a lot easier than suggest (even pretty lousy) better alternative.<p>It&#x27;s easy to imagine how everyone should be free to explore whatever he wants in his own free time, with his own money, at his own home lab (although even this isn&#x27;t true, because currently even the most basic stuff needed for research in chemistry or biology is illegal to freely buy and sell, as it can be used to produce drugs or bombs or because of some other &quot;national security&quot; bullshit). But what the author is talking about isn&#x27;t his own time and money — it&#x27;s expecting to be provided with all stuff he needs for research <i>and</i> for him to live and prosper. And if someone is about to give you all that, your promise that you&#x27;ll discover something great eventually isn&#x27;t really enough for him. Quite understandably so. So ideally he would like to make sure that you, both: won&#x27;t use all money and lab equipment that&#x27;s given to you to smoke crack and do nothing; <i>and</i> that you are actually able to discover something great. Which, I guess, even you yourself won&#x27;t promise, because you don&#x27;t know.<p>So, in fact, even with all that bureaucracy we cannot have any guarantees. And author wants for the system not only to work, but to work without putting too much pressure on him and his colleagues. How he imagines that? He doesn&#x27;t explain clearly enough.