Yes, I agree, it is. But we had to get to the point where those elements were of interest in the first place. They used to be oddities, not useful in metallurgy or most chemistry. I'm not saying super heavy elements will see useful applications, but even just doing this unapplicable research will lead to the development of new methods and instrumentation and train young scientists to *think* and solve problems.
I say that applied science fields can be traced back to and are based on formerly "useless" basic research. There need not be a 100% correlation in each and every case.
What you want is research money with no accountability. That kills wealth necessary to fund other more productive research.
I've long not wanted research money. I moved on shortly after getting my degree and went into a professional field as my own boss. When trillions are spent (wasted?) on "social projects," what do a few billion here and there matter for more esoteric research that might only broaden our general knowledge of things and creates problem-solving people that can move on to the "real world" later?
Honestly, do you really think I'm not familiar with that argument? I have NEVER on this thread argued against investment in basic research, especially given that I've been doing world class basic research for ove 20 years. My work was paid for privately, entirely within our own family on a middle class income. I would argue that much of what I've learned is of more value than this work extending the periodic table.
So I ask that you apply the following test to show what I mean: Name me a single technology useful to the world at large with its existence entirely dependent upon a single element with an atomic weight greater than Lawrencium.
Lawrencium was discovered a long time ago. I was going to college near the Berkeley Lab at the time. Reading the Tao of Physics, grooving on what Murray Gell-Mann was finding... Tripping out on the metrology for the diamond turning lathe making laser mirrors at Lawrence Livermore.
I've been there.
My argument is based upon the relative cost benefit of investments in basic research. There is a great deal of work that goes begging that could be done for far less than this. From what I can tell, with this kind of work, the ROI just isn't there and remains very unlikely.