They are successful in the sense that they get lots of grant money and the professor has lots of political power in the field. They churn out papers. Thinking back over my reading, though, I'd say they're underrepresented per capita in producing really interesting science. What you are describing is also a peculiarity of biology and some parts of chemistry. It doesn't work that way in physics or in much of engineering.
However, if you're running a megalab and have lots of political clout, it's very important to keep anyone from thinking carefully and trying to look for inconsistencies. Academic empires fall from people doing things like that.
On the other hand, there were only a handful of professors at the Rockefeller University, where I went to grad school, who I respected as scientists. One of them had a Nobel prize. The rest didn't. The rest of the Nobel prize winners in that campus lousy with them you could have defunded and put out to be homeless on the streets and had no real effect on the advance of science.
However, if you're running a megalab and have lots of political clout, it's very important to keep anyone from thinking carefully and trying to look for inconsistencies. Academic empires fall from people doing things like that.
On the other hand, there were only a handful of professors at the Rockefeller University, where I went to grad school, who I respected as scientists. One of them had a Nobel prize. The rest didn't. The rest of the Nobel prize winners in that campus lousy with them you could have defunded and put out to be homeless on the streets and had no real effect on the advance of science.