A supplemental addition to the other answers...

There is a neglected unseemly factor in scientific methodology, the [courtier][1]'s ideology of seeking funding and sponsorship.  To acquire sponsorship sometimes requires making and balancing various sponsor-required concessions or compromises, such that the spirit and quality of both the work and worker is diluted or even lost.  At its worst such ideology inspires roguish careers spent pandering to sponsors and grasping for credit.

Sponsoring large teams of scientists, organized in bureaucratic hierarchies sometimes has the side-effect of producing bitter cynics and and hopeful subversives co-evolving in a [kiss up kick down][2] culture.

Going back a few centuries, the fawning dedications of famous scientific treatises  appear much the same.  In modern textbooks those scientist are giants, but in many a source-work's dedication a noble boot becomes the scientist's lollipop.     Scientists of that age must have competed bitterly against each other for noble, (later State, and Academy, and Corporate), attentions.  Outside the gatekeepers are the outcasted [cranks][3], whose tenacity inspires popular [mad scientist][4] legends.  The unacknowledged trait common to every one of these is a [traditional conservative][5]'s ambition to move up the existing social pyramid and stay.


  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier
  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_up_kick_down
  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_scientist
  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism