It's interesting. What you see as an individual issue that can be solved through individual argument is more of a structural issue to me.

Another example is retractions - I did not see these as punitive too long ago. I used to think of retractions as part of the scientific process, strengthening the literature. More recently, I have come to understand retractions, or the processes in place to enact them, are punitive. While yes, there are definitely bad actors with tech making them more likely to multiply their efforts, treating all retractions as malevolent is to chill a necessary part of science and hurt potentially great scientists from improving. Scientists make mistakes and uphold paradigms that later scientists dissemble. It's not productive for the scientific craft as a whole to act as though any mistake or misunderstanding in the process should be the end of someone's participation in it.

For me, funding, particularly Horizon Europe funding is the same. With healthy support for the many EU institutions and with ever-evolving new institutions participating in research, the HE mechanism should make it easier for the majority to grow in numbers and participation in the scientific process. Unfortunately, that's not what is happening. Any little fish who might one day add a new approach and perspective are running out of water while the big fish absorb everything - again, not because the big fish are cruel, but because that is how they are encouraged to act within the funding mechanism as it currently works.

Encouraging competition means ensuring there is competition by funding everyone with enough to compete, and I think the mechanism should be restructured to do this for the health of the whole (I also, obviously, think we need to reconsider our systemic approach to retractions.) Without this, we end up with a less healthy, more incestuous circle of highly competitive winners who lose the benefit that comes from having more and new players -- given time and money to mature -- involved in the process.