Andrew Grove is not a "layman". He founded the most successful microprocessor maker of all time. His industry operates under a set of economic constraints that are identical to those faced by the pharma industry. It costs billions to develop each new product, R&D amounts to a large percentage of the company's costs, and the product liability exposure is just as high, which mandates a lot of testing.
What makes the difference is that the free-market culture of the semiconductor industry has resisted government control and monopoly formation from the beginning. Medicine is, in contrast, a medieval guild that uses shamanic claims ("The human body is sacred! Sacred, I tell you! Too divine to be entrusted to the turmoil of the marketplace!") to keep the serfs in line.
By that, I meant he is not a scientist. R&D is not basic science. You confound basic science with applied science. Asking a basic scientist to do applied science is like asking a devoted wife to become a street whore--they both have sex, but...
Thus, criticizing an agency that funds basic science because it doesn't enhance pharmaceutical R&D is akin to chastising your wife for not bringing home the pimp's fee.