You only have to look at a management salaries at any large defense contractor to find counter examples.
And even if this were a problem, there are so many easy fixes to this that it makes me think you weren't really thinking it through when you listed it as a reason to prevent public funding of R&D.
> You only have to look at a management salaries at any large defense contractor to find counter examples.
First, defense is by far the government-affiliated industry with the most leeway salary-wise. But even there, outside the C-suite, there's a $500k salary cap. That sounds like a lot, but many people in tech and finance make more than that, especially if they start their own business (even one that has a modest exit).
There are software engineers working for firms with government contracts making way more than the federal salary scale too. Take a look at large IT contractors, they have numerous employees making more than GS-15 and above. There are plenty of exceptions, and there is absolutely no reason drug R&D couldn't be another one.
>But even there, outside the C-suite, there's a $500k salary cap.
How many biotech researchers outside of their respective C-suites are making >$500k? There are plenty of people who have gotten wealthy on government contracts, there's no reason they couldn't do the same in biotech.
>especially if they start their own business (even one that has a modest exit).
And if you start your own business pursuing government contracts, you can make more than $500k too.
There are reasonable arguments to make against publicly funded R&D, but "the federal payscale is too low" just isn't one of them.
And even if this were a problem, there are so many easy fixes to this that it makes me think you weren't really thinking it through when you listed it as a reason to prevent public funding of R&D.