True, but then aren't the physicists she complains about also subject to the same possibility of bias?
Yes, but again, what do you trust based on your prior knowledge, such as numbers, importance of various people, your own limited understanding of physics etc.
And if there is a lack of experimental results this leads to an opening for fair - but not necessarily correct! - criticism.
But how do you know to which degree this is due to failure of the model or "engineering challenges"?
Fair point, but I think this is where the criticism - if true! - seems applicable. Can we shift toward experimental results over mathematics that is more divorced from the lab (assuming I grasp her complaints).
I would say no, because the lab is the best place(only?) to solve the problem.
String theory and MWI, from what I recall, has been criticized on multiple fronts within the physics community?
I personally think MWI sounds stupid as hell so I hope it's wrong, but from what I know from various youtube talks and pop-science articles (e.g. quantamagazine is lovely), string theory is considered the best mathematical framework while MWI is just a popular /interpretation/ of things.
I think we can at least ask if there are alternatives where funding might go, in the vein of the analogy to a Business School grad overseeing an R&D departments...but as you say this is a major issue in general. We count on "elites" in varied spheres - especially Econ / STEM / Health - but how do we as a public judge their efficacy?
Given our lack of prior knowledge, I think we just don't. The people working at these forefronts are vastly more knowledgeable than us and very likely also more intelligent, so we just trust that they'll be able to overcome whatever problems/cognitive biases current paradigms present, as has happened in the past.
If it were a business question though, the obvious answer would be to shut down the string theory R&D so you save money and let academia deal with it until more tangible results come up.