Great point. I think this applies to scientific research in general, which is why the constant emphasis on only funding research with clear and immediate economic payoff seems a bit shortsighted.
In reality, chances are that most research won't lead to anything significant - but the 1% that does will have outsized impact that will more than pay for the rest. And we don't know which 1% this will be in advance.
Unfortunately, you can very easily tell that what is excused as basic science is often just 'solutions looking for a problem'. Most "basic science" these days is just professors looking to get paid with no accountability.
Although there have been a few Fouriers across history, the most compelling brilliant scientists had one foot in applied science working on theory in the spare time. Euler, Gauss, Faraday, Langmuir. Most of the best basic science had goals "to explain something pressing" (which is not the same as "do something because there will be no payoff") anyways, like Planck, Einstein, Peter Mitchell.
There's something to be gained about cutting your teeth on problems with results, instead of just lollygagging about in theoryland.
Feynman talked about this in an exercise where he described the motion of spinning discs - a very "applied" problem, and remarked that later those insights proved useful in a separate, unrelated problem.
In reality, chances are that most research won't lead to anything significant - but the 1% that does will have outsized impact that will more than pay for the rest. And we don't know which 1% this will be in advance.