It's a mix of all of the above, and some other factors.
A lot of real scientists are too deep in their own niche to make time for reality. When they get approached with blanket statements like "help environment, people, xyz" then they'll be like "yeah that sounds good" and just add their name to the list.
There's also the career aspect. Funds are very limited and competitive. If you want to do research, you have to appease the grant writers. This always happens at the expense of real science.
The only sustainable way out is for people to put more effort into building wealth (e.g. investing more than spending), and for the same people to then put their funds towards real science.
One person doing this is Jim Simons (great interview with him on Numberphile). Not everyone is going to be a billionaire, but it only takes a small portion of people putting resources toward good causes to really tip the scales and trigger a paradigm shift.
It's a mix of all of the above, and some other factors.
A lot of real scientists are too deep in their own niche to make time for reality. When they get approached with blanket statements like "help environment, people, xyz" then they'll be like "yeah that sounds good" and just add their name to the list.
There's also the career aspect. Funds are very limited and competitive. If you want to do research, you have to appease the grant writers. This always happens at the expense of real science.
The only sustainable way out is for people to put more effort into building wealth (e.g. investing more than spending), and for the same people to then put their funds towards real science.
One person doing this is Jim Simons (great interview with him on Numberphile). Not everyone is going to be a billionaire, but it only takes a small portion of people putting resources toward good causes to really tip the scales and trigger a paradigm shift.