Decades ago my very very bright HCI prof commissioned a psyc study for a database we were building for some biologists next door, you know so we could better address their needs in ways that would be useful to them. Details are pretty fuzzy anymore but they proved correct many times over.

Things the study said would not work never worked i.e. biologists wanted "temporarily" private data, say until till published as psyc predicted they would never freely share it.

but the biggest thing I will try to paraphrase:

Biology is an observational, the work is in interpreting which lends to group dynamics and politics, leaders ect.

Which is at odds with Math/CS which is constructive where if something can be proved then that is that.

So when a CS person states a fact from their perspective a biologist might see it as just another opinion subject to hierarchical ranking.

So I would argue it is a function the individuals proclivities and correlated training in the cultural environment they end up in.

So a healthy work environment could value both fact and opinion where each has a complementary role whether academic or industry.

But as a longtime academic, I am now sadly looking towards industry.

The people staffing senior leadership in pharma/biotech are typically either former PIs from the academia, or people who could have been PIs but chose to go straight for the industry.

They have more cash to play with, but their leadership fails in the same pattern.