I'm all for it. People get lucky, then try to rationalize the past with a skill narrative. Then they soak up all the grants.
They have to put themselves in the situation to get lucky first. This person got a graduate education, and was competent enough to be selected to be doing research in what is likely a multimillion dollar lab owned by an institution, then she had the knowledge and ability to notice and be able to identify what had "accidentally" happened with a micro-organism that we barely understand.
Luck was the smallest part of this discovery. I would say that the grant money is well spent funding someone so "lucky".
Source: spent years looking hard for hibernation promotion factor in P. aeruginosa ribosomes via cryo-EM. Got a PhD and worked a whole lot of 16 hour days. Never got lucky.
Not sure what you're insinuating about the story not being true, would you like to see maps?
Aka "fundamental attribution error" - overemphasizing internal or personal factors (such as skill or ability) while underemphasizing external or situational factors (such as luck or opportunity) when explaining someone's success or behavior. Fun fact: This bias has a tendency to leave stock traders bankrupt.
This is literally the opposite of the situation put forth in the article. Accidental discoveries are accidental discoveries.
> Then they soak up all the grants.
What use does a machine learning model have for a grant? This seems like something that is uniquely useful to humans.