I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but "Science is about advancing the human condition" is a bit of a grandiose and pretentious way to put it, people usually do this when they want to get away with something.
Your view of what Science is about is aspirational, it's what we (and not all of us at that) hope is true, not what's actually true. Science is motivated by a mixture of (a) personal prestige and social status-seeking, (b) personal pleasure (some people simply delight in studying and understanding intricate patterns and phenomena), and (c) national prestige of nation states and profit motives of wealthy corporations.
I, for one, don't like it when people pull out the "I'm helping others" bit when motivating things. Everything humans do is pleasure and reward-seeking, even charity and helping other is pleasure. I would like if people were always honest about this, people love helping stray cats not because they are a helpless life (the fly stuck in a spider's web is a helpless life), but because cats are amusing and interaction with them gives (some of) us lots of pleasure. Let the "helping others" motivation always be something other people ascribe to you, your own self-stated motivation should always be "Because I wanted to", if you want to be honest.
>Science is about advancing the human condition more than celebrating great individuals.
This gives the impression that those 2 goals are somehow in tension, or that they compete for resources. But giving credit, even if you don't know prior work and are actually re-discovering it from scratch, is trivial in this day and age. Paper databases, keyword search, text-similarity search. It's not hard, not compared to actually writing the paper.
I'm not actually interested in the specific contraversy and other people here are pointing out that Lecun's paper is a position paper which are generally subject to more lax citation standards, but your statment just irked a pet peeve of mine.