I say this as an academic, of course.
In any case, left to their own devices, corporate R&D teams wouldn’t be able to define goals that work for their business. Like without the competition and goals being defined for them, DeepMind would be having meetings with brand managers about the avant- grade of ad tracking.
Getting an education (even an advanced one) is a completely separate thing than entering academia and I suspect you know this.
This is the same energy as saying that being the son of an incredibly rich person is a completely separate thing than being rich.
Private companies are much more efficient in reaching a well-defined goal.
Academia is much more efficient in reaching ill-defined goals.
The thing is that the majority of goals for basic science are very ill-defined and virtually all breakthroughs are serendipitous (reaching from antibiotics to more recently CRISPR-Cas). So I don't think it makes sense to advocate for one vs the other.
Science is pretty difficult frankly, especially these days. Sure science is worth doing, and can be quite rewarding, no doubt. But I can't quite understand the popularity. Writing papers is particularly painful, again I can't understand why there are so many papers being written, it is torrential. As others have noted, this is not the same as actual progress. But lately I have noticed something telling about several leading researchers in my field, people who have made it in every sense of the word, work at the top institutions, regularly publish stunning research in Science, Nature. They have been moving to the pharmaceutical industry in significant numbers. This tells you, basically, that academia sucks for everyone. This is also my impression from talking to people who have entered research in the last 15 years. The older researchers seem happier. Perhpas it is the pay scales that scale with seniority, or just survivorship bias.