On the other hand, this is embarrassing, because it suggests that people doing follow-up studies to a prestigious person second-guess their own results

Some people have started distinguishing between "science", i.e. the scientific method, and "the science', i.e. the total collective body of results.

"Science" is precious and pure. It's never right or wrong, it just approaches correctness as it progresses.

"The science" is always inherently suspect since that's how "science" works, but it's frequently treated as indisputable fact. This is problematic for a number of reasons, and the replication crisis is at the top of that list.