Both of the currently approved drugs for baldness -- finasteride and minoxidil -- were originally designed for other purposes: BPH and ulcers respectively. The actual research effort spent to find a "cure for baldness" is not that large. Plus, androgenetic alopecia is a likely symptom of prediabetes[1,2]; to that end, "high consumption of fresh vegetables" has been found to reduce the risk by more than half[3] and so research on baldness is not necessarily about hair loss per se.
1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5073072/
2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6340244/
3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00403-017-1799-z
Does this seem valid? I paused for a moment but only recall the concept, lacking any example off hand.
And the alignment has to be deeper in our society. A good example would be all the money spent trying to find a cure for baldness. Imagine if the funds were directed elsewhere if there weren't so many people willing to spend money curing baldness.
But does changing our values mean the people who are caring about not going bald turn their resources elsewhere. Or should we look into why these people care so much. Is it that hair, and especially natural hair, plays such a large role in attractiveness that we need to change? Maybe what we need to change is not the desire of people to be more attractive, but what society deems as attractive.
This gets even harder and more outlandish when you consider people with what even more deviant values. How much would it cost to end slavery?