Are surveillance and 'omics' profiling studies being overhyped, and eating up the limited funding for scientific research?

These day, there has been a considerable increase in publications reporting some sort of genomics/transcriptomics/metagenomics profiling. While these 'omics' tools are quite useful, many researchers simply adopt them as they guarantee some 'data' output, irrespective of sample type. Whatever sample you take, it will always have some microbial species, many genes, and you can easily report this 'profiling'. To make your study look 'big', you can increase the sample size. Such studies get published even if they do not lead to any clear conclusion. 

Particularly in the area of AMR (antimicrobial resistance), more resources seem to be invested in 'AMR surveillance' than 'antimicrobial discovery'. Obviously the latter is much more difficult than the former. It can be predicted by common sense without doing any experiment that whatever water/soil/ clinical samples you take, they will always carry some antibiotic-resistant strains, and some resistance-associated genes. Finding the same truth again and again can not solve the actual problem, until and unless new classes of anti-pathogenic drugs are not developed. However, to show that we are doing 'something', funding agencies are also releasing grants to such profiling/surveillance studies, and many researchers are also taking that easy path.

Do you think, this trend is resulting in wastage of public money? Will this trend not lead to a situation in future, when we will not have enough trained drug-discovery people, but only the surveyors and profilers? 
[This question in no way ignores importance of epidemiology, but it is about proportionate fund allocation between surveillance vs. discovery.]