Believe it or not, scientists need to eat, want to own homes, have vacation, and buy things like everyone else. There's a selection bias in "scientists don't do it for money"--the scientists that don't do it for the money tend to be the most successful because they're willing to undercut their competition. They're the ones who will invest significant amounts of their life towards an area of research, spend their weekends and nights pursuing some goal, sometimes even put family second. They are the entrepreneurs of science.

There's a lot of other scientists who are just as skilled, may have just as good ideas, as so on. They view their work as work, enjoyable for some or just a job for others (though these are very few as by this point they just find something less stressful that pays).

So it's not that the lack of money doesn't help, it basically shapes the entire labor pool of scientists selecting for the most passionate, the ones who might not be making much over a small resturaunt manager when you normalize their time spent to comp. Skilled scientists who want a life and see other opportunities tend to leave science as it's high risk low reward and apply their skill elsewhere. It's a lot to science.

If you look at CS, the research community is almost starving as most leave for big tech or others that can comp 3-5x what academia can provide. I suspect big pharma is a hit the same.