Experts are usually wrong, but in this case I can only agree with them... But the situation is complicated with fact, the need of science transform is not universal - some aspects/branches of science perform quite well (solid phase physics with exception of superconductivity research), some others not (Big Pharma or cold fusion research). In general, more holistic and less schematic attitude is required, but many activists do more damage than real help - in the same way, like the conservative people (negative activists), who are guarding the "good name" of science. The contemporary world simply is not simple.
The only important reason for change of contemporary science is its nearly one hundred years standing ignorance of cold fusion, which has brought the world on the verge of the global nuclear war. All other problems are secondary or even fabricated - but we must revert the energetic crisis ASAP - or we will face really serious problem in near future. Without energy the human society will shrink substantially and most of us probably know, what it does actually mean. We must keep the prices of oil down.
The only important reason for change of contemporary science is its nearly one hundred years standing ignorance of cold fusion, which has brought the world on the verge of the global nuclear war. All other problems are secondary or even fabricated - but we must revert the energetic crisis ASAP - or we will face really serious problem in near future. Without energy the human society will shrink substantially and most of us probably know, what it does actually mean. We must keep the prices of oil down.
The scientist's job is to observe the physical world and create knowledge. It's the policy maker's job to use that knowledge to create policy, and the engineer's job to use that knowledge to put policy into effect. The problem seems to be with the policy makers and the fools that elect them.
At the case of cold fusion the problem is on the side of scientists, because the policy maker's cannot use the knowledge, which they have not. And the scientists dismiss to research it, because they afraid the lost of investments into less effective research of energy production/transport/conversion and/or storage. It's sorta vicious circle, which has its apparent physical origin in the economy of science. Otherwise the scientists are willing to research whatever shit, once they get some money for it (genetic manipulations, artificial viruses, nuclear weapons, etc.).
Science is about accuracy, not speed
But the science is also about priorities - it should serve the people who are paying it first, just after then the community of scientists as such. The research which has no practical applications shouldn't delay the research, which has its practical applications already. In brief, we should learn to manage the research in similar effective way, like the players of strategic games like Civilization, AgeOfEmpire or Warcaft. We need to apply more science into economy of science itself.