Well, I will answer this "Do you think the majority of scientists are lazy," in this way...
My psycholinguistics professor, J.J. Jenkins, was one of the founders of his field and he was familiar with virtually all the publications. He commented to me that it was embarrassing when graduate students (doing scientific research in cognitive science) presented papers but only went back about ten years in the literature with their references and thus did not realize that many members in that very audience had researched the same topics. Eighty-two students received their doctorates under his guidance.
Yes, it is very easy for researchers to be lazy. Check their literature references as a start. You can be the judge. Aside: It is hard to cite primary historical data when it no longer exists, no?
I was present during many discussions about which applicant professors would be hired by departments and quite often intrigue was involved. The graduate students would attend presentations by the candidates. Heads of Departments would call their friends in other universities where the person was applying to compare notes. In a research university you had better believe that they were expected to bring in grant dollars. If they did not understand how to do that they would be gone in short order. You will not receive funding if you are highly critical of existing researchers' work and did not build upon it, i.e. the very body of people who will be peer reviewing your grant proposal.
I have to get back to my work.