> The only way this kind of research could be done "in the open" is if it was funded by taxpayers' money.
Not really; the founders had plenty of money to fund it in a way that was truly open and did not generate any returns for themselves. They're choosing not to.
>>insane+(OP)
My point is that, given the premise ("private people with plenty of money"), one of the outcome ("making it truly open and not generating any return") had approximately zero chance of happening.