Being wrong is a basic part of doing science. You would be imposing terrible incentives that would keep researchers from trying to understand all but the most trivial things.
Whether it’s controversial or not, it’s very dumb.
Discussion
Being wrong and paying for your mistakes is very much human. Nobody is infallible. Even Ray Dalio made mistakes, and these mistakes cost him and his investors millions of dollars. We call this having skin in the game. He eventually learned because of his mistakes and became an even better investor.
But academics don't pay for their mistakes. They get promoted and publish books. They don't learn, instead they leech off the taxpayer and essentially fail upwards. Why? No skin in the game = no incentive to learn and adapt. It's fiat science.
We aren’t disagreeing about the value of accountability. You seem to not understand that science inherently involves being wrong and learning from it in a systematic process.