- Why's (e) wrong? The first paragraph under The Enterprise states that the 'plan...is spot-on'. The second right under the first, discusses 'potential downsides'. Yet overall, isn't the author's view of the plan 'good'?
The spot-on part should not be taken out of context:
in identifying the major roadblocks in HIV vaccine development, as well as in establishing the key scientific priorities as we see them today.
That means "hey, they're not crazy, they know what they are doing." That does not mean "what they are doing is a great idea!"
If I write "in his attempt to quickly kill the victim, the murderer was spot-on in identifying the main arteries to sever", my use of spot-on does not mean I think he did a good thing!
Overall, the author describes that "The Enterprise" seems to know what they are doing, but he mentions a number of risks that he deems very high and important. From those, I would not conclude that he would ever commit to a black/white opinion about the plan being "good" or "bad". This paragraph shows the author's reserve towards the idea:
It is my contention that great new ideas are as likely to come from curiosity-driven basic studies as from the mission-oriented approach that is represented by the new proposal. Therefore, the leadership of the Enterprise must safeguard against the kind of “group think” that is so pervasive in large collaborative endeavors of this nature. The views of a small number of researchers, no matter how smart or accomplished, must not supersede the collective wisdom of the scientific community at large.
He does not call it a bad idea, but he certainly is not all-positive about it!
- Where does the passage even imply the italicised? Isn't this overinterpreting and overreading?
I would call it more than imply:
It is my contention that great new ideas are as likely to come from curiosity-driven basic studies as from the mission-oriented approach that is represented by the new proposal.
Literally states the author's position that a solution can comes from elsewhere than from this new idea. And it is exactly that point that raises his major concerns. So I do not think it is overreading.
(quotes taken from the PLOS medicine link provided in the question )