From 1980 onwards a lot of people have been operating under the misconception that gravity, by itself, is UNRENORMALIZABLE. People have tended to suppose that it could only be handled within a unification context, where the Einstein-Hilbert action is abandoned for dreams of more complex Lagrangians to be discovered in the future. In 1979, Steven Weinberg had an idea for renormalizing gravity AS IS and he tried it with only partial success---he could do it in lower dimensions but couldn't crack the D4 case. In a paper published in 1998, Martin Reuter showed that Weinberg WAS RIGHT AFTER ALL, he could have succeeded if he'd had better mathematical tools, and gravity is, by itself, RENORMALIZABLE. But by that time there was a huge mob of people with the idea fixed firmly in their heads that gravity could not be quantized except in unification with other forces, and the programs based on that mistaken notion had a lot of momentum. They assumed the E-H action was not fundamental but only an effective theory that worked approximately at low energy. Almost nobody could HEAR what Reuter said in 1998. So Reuter and collaborators devoted time to checking this result and making sure about it. When people don't want to listen, you have to be very certain in order to get through to them. So this is, I think, a very important thing. One way to see how physics can get back on track is to visualize what would have happened if Weinberg had succeeded in 1979 and got Reuter's 1998-2007 results. And because Weinberg commanded (and still does) considerable influence, the significance of his finding would have been more immediately appreciated. One thing is that the Einstein-Hilbert action (plus quantum corrections) is not just a low energy effective, it is a HIGH ENERGY BARE ACTION if you put in the right values of G and Lambda. The E-H action is a FIXED POINT in the RG flow, and stuff converges to it. It is a feature of Nature. So the E-H action is not something Reuter (or a successful Weinberg) would need to put in by hand, it is a prediction born out of the theory. Another thing is that from Reuter-Saueressig's plot of the RG flow it looks to me as if A SMALL POSITIVE LAMBDA is either predicted or strongly suggested. So a successful Weinberg would have had all the more reason to expect that. Another thing is that Weinberg could well have coming close to SCOOPING GUTH AND LINDE ON INFLATION without even needing to fantasize exotic matter in the form of an "inflaton". The RG flow for gravity PREDICTS INFLATION SIMPLY FROM THE RUNNING OF LAMBDA in the high-k early universe. It doesn't need an inflaton. So I can imagine that people in the alternative 1980s are getting pretty excited by all this, when Weinberg tells them about a natural inflation of some 60 efolding that naturally shuts itself off as the scale increases. Or how do you picture it? If Weinberg had succeeded in 1979.