These are the same ideas and intuitions that led to the current situation. "Profit is bad" -> grants. "International orgs should collect and pool money" -> university collaborations. "board decides which projects to pursue" -> granting authorities.
It doesn't work. The understanding of human nature that leads to these suggestions is just incorrect. Profit isn't a bad thing, it's actually the only way to keep people on the straight and narrow.
The motivation for scientific fraud is to extract money out of someone (and secondarily, social status). Science in aid of customer happiness is inherently difficult terrain in which to do fraud because customers don't care why your product works, only that it does, and if you sell them something that doesn't work there are lots of laws on the book that let governments or customers go after you legally.
But academic fraud is deployed against people who care more about how science-y your method sounds than whether it works. Scientists get away with it exactly because they don't promise to deliver anything, so nobody can really claim to have been damaged when they don't deliver.
What kind of people are the softest targets for such fraud? Government bureaucrats, who are tasked to spend tax money so the government can tell voters they're supporting science. What they spend the money on hardly matters. And philanthropic foundations, who are tasked to spend rich guy money so their founder can tell dinner party guests they're a good guy who is funding Alzheimer's research. These two groups of people simply don't care if the research they fund is fraudulent, as can be witnessed by the fact that after a decade+ of these stories the standard outcome is "they are still working in a lab and still publishing papers", whereas people like Elizabeth Holmes are sitting in uniform in a prison camp. The difference: profit driven commerce vs virtue-signaling driven philanthropy.