I don't see how it could harm anything, and I see the following benefits:
I'd (personally) love to look at questions somehow related to Chomsky, and a few others. I think those would be great tags for engagement.
Tags influence titles which influence search results, and people tend to search by name - so there's definitely a clear benefit there.
I don't see how they could fall into the 'meta' category of tags, it's kind of hard to apply those inappropriately unless you're just flat out mistaken
I'd go with the noam-chomsky instead of chomsky nomenclature, however synonyms would be quite handy here to allow for people to apply them correctly either way.
Definitely, no complaints out of me if these start appearing :)
I don't want to use these tags in lieu of the main topic tag, but in addition to them, where space permits. Think about this search if you will:
is:question score:3 [psychoanalysis][sigmund-freud] hasaccepted:1 answers:3
This saves me from having to manually open a bunch of questions just to close the ones that aren't related to my query, because whatever I'm working on revolves only around Freud.
The only down side I see is the possibility that new users will go to apply the researcher tag, note its existence and popularity, then stop adding tags as they congradulate themselves on a tag well done. However, doing it wrong when it comes to tagging has always been something that many new users do.
I'm not pushing strongly in either direction, I'm just noting that I have no objections if we do this (well, barring any pitfalls I haven't identified).