??Trillions of Reasons to be excited??

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/space/02cern.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=trillions%20of%20reasons%20to%20be%20excited&st=cse

This article, recently published in the NY Times details the recent work of several physicists. They have been struggling to get their machine up and running over the past several years, as an electrical connection mishap caused the billion dollar machine to explode. Today, scientists are being cautious. They do not want to waste another couple of billion dollars in the search for new particles by pushing the machine too much. The concept is absolutely fascinating; physicists actually believe they may be able to create new particles and discover forces of nature. The machine has tremendous power, it can shoot particles around a track within 1% of the speed of light. This machine is truly on the cutting edge of technology, it is this type of invention that will lead us to the future. It may have many implications for future generations. That is, if the scientists are allowed to run it. Because of the past tragedies with the superconductor, and its costs, as tremendous in size as the machine is itself the scientists will constantly have to check on the magnets, and likely need to replace them in 20 years.
I find what these scientists are doing to be absolutely amazing. They are taking steps toward our future within the scientific community. It is incredible in such a time of dire hopes in the economic sense, we are able to see advancements in the scientific arena. I do, however, find some fault with the superconductor still being financed. I, by no means am in favor of a technology sitting dormant until it rusts over and the momentum is completely lost on the project, so I am torn regarding whether the financing for this project should have gone elsewhere considered more pressing. Many countries have fallen on hard economic times, in fact they came to light in the same year that the superconductor explosion occurred. That raises the question, should the government have rebuilt the superconductor, as they did? Or should the money have been funneled into rebuilding the economy? I am fully aware that had the government left the project for several years, the remains would have been tantamount to the military bunkers found around the United States, grown over with brush, rusty and neglected. However, one could make the argument that the funding should have been redistributed to promote and support economic growth.  You may point out that this machine employs a large number of people to keep it up and running, but they are for the majority a more educated crowd, that already have positions as professors at varying universities. I find it tremendously difficult to decide between economic or scientific future. The issue is widely discussed in situations similar to this around the world, so I propose you decide what you think should have happened, although with the knowledge that nothing can be done to change where the funding actually ended up.