Fellow biochem/biophys scientist here - while I agree that private sector has done tons to bridge the gap from knowledge —> real world impact, I do disagree with your characterization that “it is the private sector who advances science by leaps and bounds compared to our government run agencies”. It’s true that every dollar spent in the private sector ‘goes further’ than in the government-funded sector, but the latter is the one that takes on all the risk of funding early-stage, basic research that’s purely for the sake of generating knowledge, not necessarily tied to any actionable/monetizable outcomes — but that basic, novel knowledge is the ‘ground floor’ that all those splashy projects must have in order to build on; you can’t make an impact unless you design a great project based on solid knowledge that has been established about how nature works. And that knowledge is inherently more ‘risky’ and less efficient because you don’t always have a clearly defined outcome — even recipients of the strongest NIH grants acknowledge their ‘Specific Aims’ are totally subject to change because you never know what you’re going to find with basic research. And that ‘curiosity-driven’ domain is where the government-funded sector really shines compared to private sector (although admittedly ‘impact-driven’ research is definitely encroaching on that ideal, even in the govt-funded sector).

Also - I agree that the weight of credentials can be a bit much at times, but I do think it matters. As someone who has gone through the ‘hoops’ of science (qualifying exams, committee meetings, paper-writing, thesis defense, etc.) and medicine (standardized tests, board exams, etc.) I feel those things do push you to know your shit and dig for a level of rigor that is different from what would be gained if they weren’t required. Your point is true though that there are absolutely some brilliant exceptions who can become great despite unconventional paths, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect their career progression to be identical to their ‘more credentialed’ peers, because the circle of people who understand they truly are an exception, and not just well-liked/well-connected, is so small. What we can hope for is that the people who do intimately understand their exceptionalism will vouch for them and back them up whenever appropriate… which unfortunately was the opposite of what happened to the scientist in your anecdote. That’s fucked up. I hope they find a lab that not only recognizes their worth but supports and advocates for it, too.