Discussions about metascience are frequently not about science, but about money. From reforming grantmaking regimes to new frameworks for evaluating the impact of funding, much of the science reform agenda focuses on how to allocate dollars to good ideas faster and more effectively.
> Normative positions should be subject to rigorous investigation and must be shaped by what we learn.
I think that staking out bold normative changes to large organizations, and especially ones with an incremental and conservative disposition, frequently requires taking bold stances and preaching from a soapbox for extended periods of time. A leader in the wilderness, functionally, who is eventually brought into the fold via a political appointment. I think it's hard to express nuance and uncertainty from the pulpit; perhaps a better way of framing this type of change is that we should be willing to abandon any given normative change but that we need ironclad exponents of the viewpoint.