No--one of the reasons it's not a more accessible path is because it pays so poorly. Science funding doesn't follow a normal supply and demand framework; money

No--one of the reasons it's not a more accessible path is because it pays so poorly. Science funding doesn't follow a normal supply and demand framework; money isn't sent to scientists by customers in exchange for the benefits they provide, but by hopeful non-profit agencies giving as much as they can without expecting tangible return. There's a set pool of money to draw from (and that pool is drying up, as funding for the NIH et al. decreases) which means you can either have a small number of well-paid scientists or lots of poorly paid ones. There are societal benefits to lots of scientists, so we're all trying to be okay with pure research as a path you can only go into if you don't have large debts to repay.