There was never any low-hanging fruit in science,
@DANDAN_THE_DANDAN.
Tinkering and research is exactly what scientists do; they don’t work to make breakthroughs, they work to gather data. That is the scientific method. The one mission of science is pretty much exactly what you said: “educated trial and error to find all the variables to find the most optimum something.” And very much resulting from that is the world we have today, though at the ground level it may not seem like what you would be doing is of any significance to the world.
....I guess the more important thing to start with is that "biotechnology" is highly unlikely to lead you into researching particle science. “I picked biotechnology on a whim” may have set you off track right from the get-go, but I’ve already wrote a wall of words on this, so, allow me.....
There’s a question that has a similar perspective:
– How is it that computers, complex as they are, essentially run by switches alone?
How does my seemingly irrelevant research help anything?
By being a switch in a circuit of switches. By being laying the foundation for future research.
Sure crop science won't change anything in astrophysics, but science is not 1-dimensional. There are many thousands of disciplines spanning from that single broad term.
A noble vision of science is that you’re in it purely for the discovery aspect but the reality is that it’s a job, jobs require pay, pay comes from an entity which generates it, and science doesn’t directly generate it. Seemingly irrelevant work helps whatever corporation sponsored it, pays you, collects data, finds out something specific that was seemingly irrelevant. If you rinse and repeat this, yay congratulations you have a scientific career. Boring? From one perspective, yes.
But it’s really important to know that the scientific breakthroughs you’re getting inspired by aren’t a representation of the science field, they result from hundreds or thousands of years of seemingly irrelevant work. Science in the past was never easy, you just don’t hear about all the rest of the discoveries that were made and the work that went in.
For the same reason, you should remember: famous people in science are made famous by their famous discoveries, not because they are worth any more than their peers. Those same famous people have had their own share of that mundane work.
That vision of a ‘breakthrough’ career is not what science is about. What you are thinking of is basically what inventors are always trying to do.
To see a problem and research everything about it, is science.
To see a problem and try directly create a solution, is invention (the aiming-for-the-stars type).
But that type of revolutionary invention mostly ends in failure, due in large part to a lack of scientific information.
Also, invention isn't a career, it's just something that people do.
To summarise:
You can't become a scientist that is always part of breakthrough research.
You are not guaranteed to ever be a part of breakthrough research, but at the same time, science research doesn't have to be like working in a cubical.
Most importantly: you CAN come up with your own original research if you learn enough relevant information, are creative and know the issues any particular field is facing.
More relevant to this medium, the internet sadly does not yet replace traditional education, so don’t forget to consider that the knowledge you obtain through advanced schooling may be of use to you outside of a career.