No offence but she is a trained physicist so she too is an 'actual scientist' by the very definition of the term. And she's completely right about the neglect of economic reasoning. The arguments against blowing 40 billion bucks on an accelerator that will likely not surface anything new is valid. Physicists gotta accept that opportunity costs are real.
And the 'canary in the coalmine' point in particular in regards to pharmaceuticals is valid too. The research costs for very specialised, small scale drugs has exploded by a magnitude or two depending on who you ask. Other fields are starting to suffer as well.
I would go even further than she does and say it's an almost universal condition of modern research. We see diminishing returns everywhere, and if this is not stopped and we don't manage to drastically increase the efficacy of scientific research we'll effectively flatline at some point.
Almost any material hard metrics you look at like life expectancy, economic growth or whatever you could consider a sign of technological advancement, even tens of billions in investment seem to produce only marginal improvements. We are not living in the golden age of science.