I think what really should be said is that we need governments to continue funding pure science - research that doesn't necessarily have immediate benefits, but rather expands our understanding and may provide building blocks for those breakthrough discoveries that clearly move us forward.
That's not to say that there isn't also a place for funding specific research that shows promise for solving specific problems or that would provide specific benefits - the Manhattan Project is certainly an example of this.
Yes, and the LHC cost about $13 billion. Was it worth it? Would another--probably more expensive--collider be worth a likely negative result? Is there a cheaper way to achieve most of the same goals? Are there more promising things to do with that research money?
Top comment suggests it's too early to say that the results from the LHC are entirely negative.
> At the end of 2018, the LHC will have recorded a mere 3% of the intended research program. That means that there is 30x more data to come. I think you'd need to see the results of all of the data before you say that the LHC was a bust. It may be. But your claim is hasty.
That's not to say that there isn't also a place for funding specific research that shows promise for solving specific problems or that would provide specific benefits - the Manhattan Project is certainly an example of this.