[WS:] An interesting piece, thanks for posting. I am surprised that the Economist identifies competition as one of the chief culprits - this goes against the "received wisdom", no?
One issue that is not clear in this paper is a difference (if any) between academia and non-academic research institutions. I would imagine that most of the problems identified in the article - stuffed shirts and big egos striving for status and its perks in an increasingly competitive environment - pertain mostly to the academia, and less so to non-academic research institutions. It is so, because in non-academic research institutions your position depends less on academic status which in turn is determined predominantly by your alma mater (i.e. your parents' income) and journal publications (many of which are regurgitation of the earlier works or plagiarized from work of colleagues or graduate students anyway) and more on your ability to work in teams to obtain results. Or at least this is what I think - but it might be the greener grass on the other side of the fence. I worked in the academia most of my life and I know for the fact how full of shit it is, but I would want to believe that there are places where things are better. Any thoughts?
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."