Your comment reminded me of a Youtube documentary about "the missing American particle collider"[0]. The documentary touches on some Fermilab drama, but most of the content is aimed at politics (and in particular, how presidential politics is unfortunately intertwined with funding for science mega-projects in the US).
This may be an interesting example of a “zombie” organization. Fermilab exists to push the boundaries of particle physics.
We stopped wanting to do that, or at the very least outlay the capital to do that. We likewise don’t want people at fermilab doing other things with their time. Meaning that they don’t have much to do but go through the motions.
We have a few of these in science, it would arguably be better in the long run to refocus our science budget on problems we’re interested in solving and some “risk” budget for different ideas.
There's a further subtlety -- the US would like to retain the capability to do this work without funding the entirety of the work itself. A lot of the expertise and infrastructure is unique and world-class.
In my view, the entire field is on pause awaiting the development of truly transformative accelerator technology, then it's off to the races again.
"In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending." -- Wilson.
Plasma Wakefield and “accelerator in a chip” are those breakthroughs that are expected to mature soon, though accelerator on a chip would be pointing more towards new applications
>would like to retain the capability to do this work without funding the entirety of the work itself
Oh, then that's easy: just pay them to keep reading work in the field, maybe write a blog, and get into the theoretical side. I'm sure plenty of folks would jump at the opportunity to be on "professional standby" in a field they find fascinating.
Unfortunately that just attracts fakers/scammers, as it’s the perfect role for them. They get to act all high and valuable, but there is no concrete verifiable output expected to be able to tell if they really are able to do what they say or not.
At least until whatever situation you’re hoping to hedge against happens - then you’ll find out you’re being scammed, but far too late.
Government organizations should be wound down more regularly.
Nobody would argue that a business unit that has outlived its usefulness should be funded in perpetuity, yet there seems to be this "strictly increasing" mindset around organizations funded by the taxpayer.
> Nobody would argue that a business unit that has outlived its usefulness should be funded in perpetuity
Au contraire, private sector bureaucrats aren't special. The constituent bureaucrats of that business unit certainly would and do advocate for the continuation of their fiefdoms, but in business settings their self-interested scheming is eventually overridden by business considerations (e.g. the people with the money, who want to stop hemorrhaging their money.) In government orgs, the bureaucrats have more influence (because there is more distance between the people who pay for it and the people who decide it should be paid for) so the bureaucrats are more effective at preserving bureaucracy for the sake of itself. However in each case, the instincts and inclinations of career bureaucrats are precisely the same: grow the org. This is Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy. It applies to both private and public bureaucracies alike.
Not no longer necessary, but not viable on the scales we’re willing to invest. A new accelerator would cost on the order of 100 billion. Such an accelerator is unlikely to discover anything of interest compared to its cost.
There are paths forward, but most of them involve stellar phenomena - which leaves the extensive organizations required to push accelerators forward without much to do.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivVzGpznw1U&list=PLAB-wWbHL7...