Are most papers generated for the advancement of careers rather than advancement of human knowledge? Should research funding be allocated by lottery? Do we reward splashy results over rigorous methodology? Not random ramblings but ideas from a thought provoking article based on the responses of 270 (predominantly) biomedical and social scientists in the USA. It aims to identify perceived problems facing science and offers fixes for each. A small, limited survey but it certainly raises questions and probably has lessons and ideas for a much wider community.