Ultimately there is a fixed amount of effort people can expend - however the science budget isn't fixed in the sense that projects like the LHC can generate the excitement etc to enlarge the overall pie ( for science - taking away from something else of course - though that could be time spent at home unemployed ).
Most science is done through small incremental advances that add up over time - one of the problems with that is it's rather hard for politicians to see or understand that.
Big projects capture the attention. Though obviously big projects can also, if they fail, damage the reputation of experimental science as a whole.
So yes - LHC isn't probably the best use of money - there are more pressing immediate concerns - however on the other hand - everyone has heard of it - it attracts funding and people to science ( and does good science of course ).
Ultimately there is a fixed amount of effort people can expend - however the science budget isn't fixed in the sense that projects like the LHC can generate the excitement etc to enlarge the overall pie ( for science - taking away from something else of course - though that could be time spent at home unemployed ).
Most science is done through small incremental advances that add up over time - one of the problems with that is it's rather hard for politicians to see or understand that.
Big projects capture the attention. Though obviously big projects can also, if they fail, damage the reputation of experimental science as a whole.
So yes - LHC isn't probably the best use of money - there are more pressing immediate concerns - however on the other hand - everyone has heard of it - it attracts funding and people to science ( and does good science of course ).
Tricky balance.