BioTech vs. Academia: Why can't we get along?

I have worked in both biotech and academia and heard this argument for years. There is a clear jealous element there from academia (that's the least offensive word I could come up with) on the money that industrial scientists earn. Whilst those in academia say that industrial science get too focused on one thing and "not the big picture". The argument continues in that for all your successful work in academic science, you have to beg for money every four years [depending on the mood of the NIH], and IF your fruits payoff, your reward is just a published paper. On the other hand, if you have an active role in biotech research, you may have contributed to a life saving drug. To me, that beats a paper in some political biased journal---[remember it's not what you know but who.] I think that the bias against Biotech is that academia is pretty much set in their position--you do a postdoc, get your own lab, and publish or perish. If successful, then you get tenure and continue your basic research on flies/yeast/slime mold. What is the HUMAN PHYSIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF YOUR RESEARCH is what you have to ask yourself.
Industry relies on your basic research for initial development/background analysis of future IND development. The scrutiny that Biotech science goes through would clearly not function in the University setting.

In the end, it's not practical to argue; it's apples and oranges when you consider both sides.

I'd like to read your opinions.