You have no idea of what you are talking about. You like to attack and clumsily try to poke fun, but you offer no insights into possible solutions. You also know nothing about me, and how I encourage students to question everything and explore novel ideas. Somehow you assume that scientists don't like science and discovery. Somehow you assume that I alienate students. Are you serious??? Look, maybe you had some experience with an a-hole professor or something, but do not make assumptions about me, or other PIs.
Read TFA again. It does not even include the word student. TFA notes that a shift in the way scientists are funded has led to the lack of mavericks. It supports a shift back to support basic research, which scientists by and large prefer.
I don't think you understand how scientific research gets done. Scientists do not in fact determine what will get worked on in the broad scale. We can only really do what we get funding for. If funding is tied to a specific and narrow project, it discourages risky and potentially groundbreaking research. If there is no funding for basic research, I not sure how the students' stipends and reagents to do the experiments gets done.
You have no idea what decisions I have made. I certainly have not decided to cash in by taking corporate funded research, to increase profits as you somehow concocted. I, and most of my colleagues, do basic research funded by NIH. We care about this a lot. I have worked very hard, dedicated my life to my work. I do it NOT for money, which should be obvious if you look at average faculty salaries.
In the last decade or so there has been a shift in focus away from basic research and toward applied or "translational" research. This switch, made by the NIH, in response to congress critters demand for so-called deliverables, changes the way in which research is done. It has shifted away from basic (i.e. more risk).
Your "blame-shifting" argument is stupid. How do you propose one does the basic research if it does not get funded?.
Also I must add that the summary takes liberty with the point of "challenging the effectiveness of the mouse model as basis for medical research." Clearly mice share some physiology and developmental characteristics with humans. The article does not support a questioning of all mouse research, but it makes a strong case against using it to study sepsis.
Hackers of the world, unite!