Mmm, there's much I agree with here, and some parts I strongly dispute.
I can't speak to the women in science aspect so I'll just assume it's all true and therefore obviously in need of a complete overhaul.
The grant system is indeed stupid. Applications that take a long time to prepare, even longer to evaluate, and then come back with glowing reports that say, "but this just isn't a priority for us", yeah, that's a stupid system. So is the academic career path of being expected to do (at a typical minimum) two postdocs in widely-separated locations before settling on a permanent position. The less said about publish-or-perish, the better, it's a daft way to evaluate performance, if even such a thing is possible at the forefront of knowledge. All this I've ranted about myself, ad nauseum.
But as to the claims about having undermined an entire discipline, nah, or most academic papers being bullshit... nah. At least to to any great degree beyond what's inevitable if you're doing your job properly, which is to say... investigating the forefront of knowledge, where no-one can tell you if you're right or wrong because no-one else knows. The old quote that it wouldn't be research if you knew what you were doing is emphatically true. You can't avoid mistakes in such a process; I've never seen Sabine ever clearly explain what she thinks everyone is doing that's so wrong in a way that's presumably different from the necessary method of progress that includes these inevitable mistakes.
