I guess at a very high level, the question is, do you think the current system and what it incentives is fine/optimal (and are sanguine presumably then about things like the the Lesné Aβ*56 fraud or the OP article [the failure of over half the biomedical experiments tested to repro]), or do you think it can be improved?

To me it clearly seems like there is room for improvement!

Even granting that most scientific researchers are pure of heart and noble of purpose, the kinds of science we get (and how quickly we uncover spurious results) are still going to depend on the systemic incentives of funding, publishing, & prestige -- so it's worth trying to structure those systems in a way that rewards good science as much as possible.