In agree, the idea that science is a meritocracy is flawed. Working in a bioinformatics lab, I saw two PHD students, one motivated, smart and very hard working. The other, well I guess he was reasonably smart.
The second one chose a relatively easy subject, and got his PHD after 7 years, without really trying. The first one was in the lab late most nights for 6 years, but kept on being beaten to publish his results by other groups.
So after 5 years, one would have a few papers to his name, while the other wouldn't have. Which one would have made the better researcher, the one willing to put in the extra hours and dedication or the one who wasn't? Based on papers published (which is largely what science does), then the less dedicated one would have been chosen.
The second one chose a relatively easy subject, and got his PHD after 7 years, without really trying. The first one was in the lab late most nights for 6 years, but kept on being beaten to publish his results by other groups.
So after 5 years, one would have a few papers to his name, while the other wouldn't have. Which one would have made the better researcher, the one willing to put in the extra hours and dedication or the one who wasn't? Based on papers published (which is largely what science does), then the less dedicated one would have been chosen.