In [@bhattacharya2020Stagnation and Scientific Incentives], the authors argue that :
the eccentric scientist type has a weakened incentive to enter science. Gradually in science, such individuals will be replaced with people who work well in teams but conform more easily to prevailing scientific norms, researcher who tend to eschew exploration in new areas of investigation and instead work in more crowded research areas. To be sure, both types of scientists are valuable.
I think this is highly contradictory (or dangerous). The eccentric type normally refers to a scientific bully, a man who abuses his position of power mistreating women and minorities. Social misfits who can't work in teams. People who is tolerated even though they represent, in some cases, the worst behaviors found in society and that are not tolerated elsewhere.
When the authors argue that current incentives will weed out this type of people, I am all in favor, but I think they just didn't really think true what they are trying to say.
These are the other notes that link to this one.