You seem to imply that a PhD program is the only way to have researchers get tutored/trained. I.e., that PhD programs have a monopoly on developing the skillset; I'm saying they have a monopoly on the credential but not the skillset. Maybe I've had good employers but there's always been an emphasis on training junior employees in research, regardless if they had a PhD or not. Maybe that's the seat of our difference in opinion.
I think the idea that a PhD program is the only adequate training for research is flawed. Most of the researchers (PhD and otherwise) have a fairly methodical approach to the endeavor. If there's a method/process, it can be taught. The non-PhDs that I know doing research did not have some innate talent for research, but were taught by other more senior researchers.
IMO, most research is borne from the combination of a solid grasp of a problem that needs to be solved, taking the time to build deep understanding of the topic, and then following a methodical approach to testing a hypothesis. None of that takes exceptional talent or half a decade in a PhD program to learn. (I say this as somebody who's been through a PhD program that I enjoyed. It's not from any bitterness). The biggest hurdle for many seems to be funding and resources, rather than some exceptional talent. And to that end, I'd concede that a PhD credential can open up doors for resources, but I hold that as distinct from the skills required from research.
If you're talking about the exceptional, once-in-a-generation breakthroughs, sure, I can see why a PhD program with an exceptional advisor may be necessary. The the vast, vast majority of research is small and incremental.