I think the "solely" part isn't necessary to the claim that the NSF is a large net benefit to industry by supporting early research. Apparently the NSF did provide support for IntraLase to pursue commercializing a device for LASIK cornea surgery.
With PCR, their own claim, which other sources seem to agree with, is that research on extremophile bacteria supported by NSF in the 1960s found the bacteria from which a heat-tolerant DNA polymerase enzyme was isolated.
I think this is actually a pretty good example of research which initially might have seemed purely exploratory that facilitates valuable applications which couldn't have been seen at the outset.
The original Taq polymerase used in the original PCR was published here https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/232952/pdf/jb... and funded by the U. Cincinnati. The NSF funding (along with Atomic Energy COmmission funding!) paid for the initial capture and isolation of Taq, but that is just one of many things that had to be done for PCR to happen. I think the NSF is stretching here to say they made a sigifnicant contribution to CRIPSR.
In summary: NSF funding is great. It played an important role in a key component of PCR. But it's still a stretch for them to tout their involvement with PCR per-se.
https://www.nsf.gov/science-matters/invention-impact-story-l...
With PCR, their own claim, which other sources seem to agree with, is that research on extremophile bacteria supported by NSF in the 1960s found the bacteria from which a heat-tolerant DNA polymerase enzyme was isolated.
I think this is actually a pretty good example of research which initially might have seemed purely exploratory that facilitates valuable applications which couldn't have been seen at the outset.