So even if someone has the funding and the will for independent research, the problem remains of confirming the validity of their research. This is a research problem in its own right. Ideally we have a system of peer review to validate research, but in practice we use a weak form of argument by authority as a loose proxy for reproducibility. This works better for some fields than others. I know I immediately go Scott Aaronson’s blog to determine whether some new “quantum breakthrough” is actually plausible. It’s a decent proxy in this field for correctness. But psychology? Much more difficult to find a good proxy.
Luckily I think mathematics is already moving in a direction that will eliminate the validation problem. Think you’ve solved the Collatz conjecture? Submit your Lean proof to an automated proof checking system hosted on a university website and if it validates, someone famous is going to take a look at your proof even if you never finished high school. We’re not at that point yet, but it’s inching closer. The group that proved the value of BB(5) received a lot of serious consideration of their work despite their unconventional backgrounds due to having a formally validated proof on hand. Without that proof? Hard to say whether the claim would have been reviewed.