There is an underlying precarity in the academy that is so deep it almost feels like a natural part of science. This is part of what makes reform so difficult. Early on, rocking the boat feels like career suicide. Later on, if you are lucky enough to become established, you are much less likely to feel like deep reform is necessary: after all, the system benefited you. And even then, the precarity doesn't go away. You still compete for grants like everyone else, and your trainees are attempting to become established. Why should they be the ones to shoulder the risk of, e.g., ignoring the glam journals and exclusively putting out preprints?
This seems like a tautology, by definition most people are not so unique that they can’t be replaced in a large enough organization.
This was different in the past because back then academia was vastly smaller, so practically everyone from post—doc on up was a literal genius, or close to it. And thus much harder to replace.
