The price of the experiment depends, of course, on the experiment. The point is there was an initial excitement as well as initial skepticism. Then there were

The price of the experiment depends, of course, on the experiment. The point is there was an initial excitement as well as initial skepticism. Then there were investigations. The community eventually accepted the preponderance of evidence. To try to do an experiment now for faster-than-light neutrinos I would imagine would be hard, because everything we see seems to indicate that the speed of light is a hard limit (of course, there is a lot of stuff we can't see, at least directly...). But to convince people to fund an expensive experiment for it would be difficult because the framework that supports the idea that it can't happen is nice. It's as you say: once you have a basic working model it doesn't take conspiracy theory to see other avenues being blocked. The particular point the article makes, however, that journals reject articles because of no prior publications in good journals is infuriating. The article also mentions that funding has been limited; so hard choices had to be made. But it does seem curious that the cause was so widely believed before they could even make a solid diagnosis of the disease without an autopsy examination of the brain.