[Jabbles]

But one of her points is that many of the jobs of current physicists depend on the status quo. That seems almost tautological. She then alleges that that clouds their judgement on the best use of research funding.

I'm sure that if you asked a range of physicists if _their_ area of research should receive more funding instead of the FCC, you would see less support for the FCC.

So we, as outsiders, are stuck not knowing what to believe - and ultimately an outsider, a politician, must make the decision for funding.

[SiempreViernes]

But if you don't trust the budget priorities that the scientist themselves create, why would you trust Sabine's opinion on those priorities?

[Jabbles]

I don't know what Sabine would spend $40B on instead, but intuitively that seems like it could buy a lot of research in a lot of areas, rather than picking particle physics.

And it doesn't have to be physics, it could be cancer research, or not even research: each country involved could upgrade their sewage system instead.

But Sabine doesn't have to have all the answers to be right to point out that there's an enormous conflict of interest if you ask particle physicists whether they'd like $40B. Of course they'll say yes.

[SiempreViernes]

> there's an enormous conflict of interest if you ask particle physicists whether they'd like $40B

That's not a conflict of interest, like at all. What are you talking about?

[pests]

I think they are confusing "conflict of interest" and just "in their interest".

If you asked me if my friend Bob should get a free $100 or if I should get a free $100; of course I'm going to choose myself, as that's in my best interest. There is no conflict though.

I believe the core point being "of course particle physicists want more funding of particle physics"

[constantcrying]

>But if you don't trust the budget priorities that the scientist themselves create, why would you trust Sabine's opinion on those priorities?

Her argument is that very particular niches of science receive extreme funding leading to advanced results in particular areas, which other areas can not meaningfully engage with. This funding imbalance is not "decided by the scientists", in any meaningful way.

Nowhere does she imply that she should decide who gets funding, in fact she wants an end to publicly funded research. I really dislike it if people criticize other based on made up arguments about them, like you did.