From your original post,

> repeating things we already know

Not a terribly scientific stance.

> while legitimate researchers have to scrimp and wheedle to do anything novel

There isn't a normative standard for good research beyond doing good research. Some fields have an easier time setting up and controlling experiments, but no research can predict how useful it'll turn out to be. You're conflating control convenience for utility.

> randomize grants who meet a basic competency threshold

You ignore the political and economic system within which the scientific system sits.

> if it leads to a more focused funding of actual, legitimate science, I'm largely in favor

Again, your normative standard for what is legitimate.

> simply because it's done by a consortium of big names, in trendy areas.

They're trendy for a reason. Science is, at it's core, questioning things because someone cares about it.

You're not being very rational. Please be civil and respond to the points, rather than give a "no you".