That's the nature of R&D. There are 100 failures for every 1 success, because often, the usefulness of basic research is unknown.
Modern cryptography is based on advances in number theory and abstract algebra. None of the mathematicians over the last 2 centuries who contributed to those advancements foresaw the applications.
Modern GPS satellites are dependent upon general and special relativity. Einstein never foresaw it.
Much of the military industrial spending that funded the creation of Silicon Valley was not specifically targeted at creating the industries that followed.
The whole point of basic R&D is you don't know the economic outcome. It is a quest for knowledge. It may create the next disruptive technology or industry, or, it may not, and just be a another curiosity to be studied by academics.
It's a double edged sword, but why should we want swords with only one edge (short term economic success)?
Microsoft R&D funds for example, like IBM, mathematic researchers. These people are not working on products or applications, they're working on proving theorems.
I don't fault Microsoft for "wasteful" spending. Research and Development is a genetic algorithm for searching the fitness frontier of knowledge space. A whole lot of organisms, or ideas, have to die, before local optima can be broken out of to find the next peak.