Now obviously String Theory has been responsible for some valuable research, and even if the theory were completely disproven (although I don't see how; my understanding is that it is still too vague in it's predictions and descriptions to be proven or disproven conclusively). But String Theory (all versions of it) seems to have been researched a very long time and taken a very high proportion of resources, in terms of what it's actually produced. What I'm saying is, String Theory has made no provable predictions, there is no experimental results which can strongly vouch for its correctness, there are very few certain boundaries within the theory... would it be more productive to assign resources elsewhere, to areas of physics research which can actually produce results? I find String Theory very interesting but it is seeming to me more and more like many String Theorists becoming blinded by the idea of an elegant theory of everything, at the cost of perspective; there are major flaws being ignored and it hasn't come up with much actually useful. I was wondering what people's opinions would be on reassigning funding elsewhere, to areas which can actually demonstrate that they have justification for the resources. (I'm not criticizing anyone here, this is just a general discussion purely for the sake of curiosity and interest, I am not complaining about funding distribution, I'm just interested about which theories people feel are most in need of resources).