I understand where the cynicism is coming from, but it's not accurate without looking at the other side of the coin, and scientific research overall.
It's incredibly hard to predct the effect a scientific discovery will have, which is why (lamentably) the measure of scientists right now is how many papers we publish. Unless you're working in a very applicable field, there's no way to predict where something will end up, or what a new piece of knowledge will cause 20, 40 60 years down the road.
As examples: Schrödingers Quantum Mechanics, or Röntgens discovery of X-Rays
Quantum Mechanics is key to understanding solid state devices such as transistors, without those there aren't any computers. Quantum Electrodynamics leads to lasers. No lasers & no computers = no mp3 players, no BR/DVD/CDs, no internet... the information age as we know it doesn't exist. No X-Rays means no X-Ray scattering techniques, means no understanding of DNA, means no modern biochemistry and no modern alimentary technology. No biosynthetic insulin, no synthetic interferones, biochem quality control of your food, no processed foods, etc.. I'm fairly sure Schrödinger & Röntgen weren't thinking of ordering pizza over the internet, but that's where we ended up.
A company that funds research however doesn't have a century to wait whether the research pays off in a new product. They need results, and preferably faster rather than slower. Thus they go for "easy" things, meaning things close to actually being applicable, or things where a solution can be found in years instead of decades.
Btw that's also the reason why we often get "treatments" instead of "cures". It's not so much that treating is more profitable (it's not necessarily, since it means i get a %age of the marketshare for the 10 years my patent stand, and then have competition; as opposed to 100% marketshare instantly if i had a cure); it's that if i have limited resources and can
a) increase your quality of life & make sure you go on living
OR b) find a cure 20 years down the road when you might be dead;
i'll chose "a" to tide me over until someone figures out "b".
You need incredibly deep pockets to go for just b) for a decade or two without anything you can sell, and even deeper pockets to fund both a & b. Companies will tend to go for whatever doesn't lead to them being bankrupt. No doubt, there's enough jerks in the business (Hi, Mensato), but from personel experience the people working in the pharma industry usually have a higher standard of ethics and adherence to law, than those working in the alimentary corporations.
If you want to have basic research done into fields that aren't immediately remunerable, that leaves universities, governments (and militaries). That's not saying it doesn't come out of corporations (in fact, a ton of it does), but it's often a byproduct for them.
/sidenote end
