Most perspectives on science highlight the hierarchical nature of the process, and how successive layers are built on previous ones. I largely agree with this, and Sean Caroll outlines it in 'The Big Picture', but many have pointed this out before. Before I'm willing to throw in the towel, let's at least figure out what biology is all about :) For this task, we'll likely use a tremendous amount from fundamental physics, and then we may need to invent what's next (or not, I'm sure you are well aware of the view that physics was 'solved' in the late 1800's.....but leave it to the Germans to need a more efficient lightbulb).

In addition, from my perspective, research isn't just about what we find out in an isolated field, but also the interplay of discoveries and knowledge between fields. This latter view, 'integration', is largely unexplored at scale, though lip service is constantly being given to it. I think there is a tremendous amount we can do here, and it's not just marginal. Overall, I am more optimistic I think, perhaps to an unwarranted degree :)

I also think that language is important, especially in the service of scientific understanding and progress. In this respect, I think category theory is poised to play a major role as a language for the sciences, and particularly integrative science in the 21st century.

I've been working on this in my spare time: https://www.eonias.org/, which I definitely hesitate to link to here because it's unfinished, but I figure I might as well start putting it out there. I think there are lots of ways to improve the way we go about research, having been in the grind for a few years now. There are tons of different opinions on this, but I just wanted to do something.

In short, I personally am not concerned whether 'research productivity is getting worse because of X, and because X is "the laws of physics"' is actually true or not (this is a complicated question, and the relevant question is whether 'productivity' can go up again--I think it can). I believe there's plenty left to do, and we need far more people doing it than we have engaged now. After all, should we move the money from the budget of the NSF into tax incentives for football stadiums? From my perspective, I think the NEH should have a much larger budget, which in and of itself is an interesting topic of debate. I mean, where have the humanities gone?? I'm f@#C!ing tired of AI and robots already. ;)