I meant the former, that is, science in its ideal condition. Though I must add that that "ideal" science does exists despite the failure of Academia to provide the scientist with a buffer from socio-economic pressure (which is its stated purpose). After all, there are people who actually discover, invent, etc. and it's not a coincidence that those really meaningful discoveries and inventions are the work of people who are not incentivized by mundane social concerns. I mean, (but it's just an assumption) that folks like e.g. Einstein are primarily (or even exclusively) interested in their field of work and not in fame, money, or academic titles and positions.

I also don't think that the problem is in humanism or implied progress that go with science. The hypocrisy, in my book, really stems from the fact that the vast majority of "scientists" are scientist merely in name (or in other words, they are merely academics, who, as you also observed, solve utterly useless pseudo-problems). Exactly as priests are embodiments of their respective traditions only formally and not factually.