I think he is largely correct in identifying the flaws of &#x27;academic research&#x27;, but he does not spend enough time discussing the whys.<p>Academics are in an insanely competitive environment, where what is rewarded is bringing in grants&#x2F;high impact publications.  There are a very select few academics that are so brilliant and have such sterling reputations they can afford to not play this game (like Matt Welsh&#x27;s former advisor) but most young researchers don&#x27;t have this luxury.<p>For example, Peter Higgs, the Nobel prize winner who postulated the existence of his namesake Boson, flat out said that: &quot;I wouldn&#x27;t be productive enough for today&#x27;s academic system&quot; (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2013&#x2F;dec&#x2F;06&#x2F;peter-higgs-boson-academic-system" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2013&#x2F;dec&#x2F;06&#x2F;peter-higgs-b...</a>).  He spent several years of quiet research without publishing anything to develop his theory - a young professor doing the same now is unthinkable.  The most highly successful young scientists I know now are incredibly career driven and optimize ruthlessly for the kind of output that tenure committees are looking for.<p>Basically, if you want researchers to incorporate best practices (tests, version control, well commented code, etc) and to actually attempt ambitious longterm research programmes, make sure that&#x27;s what you reward, and remember you cannot just reward success.  By definition, something ambitious has a high possibility of failure - if failing means that your career is destroyed, then people won&#x27;t do it.