Maybe she has a point, but for the wrong reasons. There's something to be said about "throwing more money" believing that it will end up in better science. It's

Maybe she has a point, but for the wrong reasons. There's something to be said about "throwing more money" believing that it will end up in better science. It's politically easy to pass a bigger, huger accelerator: tons of jobs, recognizability of the effort by taxpayers , but scientifically it's a rather predictable bet. It's similar to rich people throwing megatons of money on startups believing that they are creating something useful. LHC size projects are not that exciting projects. They are mostly a welfare package for the hordes of decomissioned physicists who are left behind after the wild century of Physics. It's probably more fruitul to seek innovative accelerator designs or other kinds of stuff. Or, that money would probably better be spent if they just paid the scientists to work and compete on whatever they like. Perhaps physics needs more patent clerks who spent a lot of time thinking rather than submitting grants, catching flights to perpetual meetings and publishing 500-author papers.