> There was a period of time when science was advanced by the aristocrats who were self funded and self motivated.
From a distance the practice of science in early modern and Enlightenment times might look like the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. If you read the detailed history of the times you'll see that the reality was much more messy.
Today we only remember the great thinkers of these times, and tend to see a linear accumulation of knowledge. If you look at the history of the times you realise that at the time there was a vast and confusing babble, it was very hard at the time to distinguish the valid science from the superstition, the blind regurgitation of classical authority, the soothsayers and yes, the fraudsters.
For example Kepler considered his work on the Music of the Spheres (google it) to be more important than, and the ultimate goal of, his research on the mechanics of planetary motion. Newton dabbled in alchemy, and his dispute with Leibnitz was very very bitchy with some dubious jostling for priority. And there was no end of dubious research and outright fraud going on at the time. So no, it was not a golden era of disinterested research.
See for example the wikipedia articles on Phlogiston, The Music of the Spheres, the long and hard fought battle over Epicycles etc
Not the OP, but I remember reading about many twists and turns on the road to various inventions described in Matt Ridley's "How Innovation Works". I personally like "Happy Accidents. Serendipity in Major Medical Breakthroughs in the Twentieth Century" by Morton Meyers.
Once it became a distinguished profession the incentives changed.
"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"