The overarching question is more difficult. Government buying drives up asset prices. If we look in terms of government stimulated markets, then the NIH and NSF combined spending is about 38 billion a year, a large portion of that goes to this industry which in total is only 40 billion in size. Professors are not very incentivized to cut costs in this regard, and can be incentivized for the opposite. It looks reasonable for a professor to take a 300k salary when their reagent budget is millions, not so much if it was 20k. No existing player could survive if they dropped the bottom out of the market, even if they then took all of it.
Ultimately capitalism doesn't seem to apply very much in healthcare and research. I'm sure you could think of many more answers.
Something is broken there. Grants aren't easy to get these days, which drives people away from high-risk work. They might not want to take on any risk with bargain basement reagents when they know that the expensive ones work. I think this is another example of why lots of small grants that are easy to get can be better than a few large grants that are hard to get. It would encourage creativity and risk-taking, which is what academia should be doing.
Instead of trying to focus on untying this Gordian knot, I intend to cut it with a sword.
Glad to hear it. Nice to see you around these parts again. Best of luck with this venture.