Seriously. I read this and all I could think was "what a dick".

Disclaimer, I have not read the full source material and am only basing this off the quoted image.

I fully understand not being interested in having to attract your own funding, it's awful. But the rest of it is not limited to the academic or scientific pursuits. Being a decent enough person so people want to support you? Developing good work that people want to hear about it (ie conferences)? (By the way, you submit your own work to conferences and they are judged to be invited blindly, ie names removed), being able to hold your tongue when you know someone is wrong in order to keep peace? Understanding that hierarchy exists?

These are not things that are antithesis to good science, and if no one had ever taught her these things that's a failing on her younger days.

Miss me with that thought terminating cliche.

No. Science is the only human effort that specifically defines what human is. If we allow that "sure being human is going to mess up science" then we have failed before we even started.

I'm really surprised, although this is becoming kind of common so perhaps I shouldn't be, to see all the comments saying effectively "yeah, so?"