What hypothesis is being tested here? Is there any theory that predicts that large objects won't behave like waves if they are properly isolated from the environment?
Nobody is really expecting large objects to behave differently, but somebody should still check.
From the perspective of a theoretical particle physicist these theories are also awkward because they try to fiddle with non-relativistic quantum mechanics like the Schrodinger equation. But that equation merely arises in the non-relativistic limit of the more fundamental relativistic quantum mechanics, more commonly known as quantum field theory. Therefore, if you want to probe the foundations of quantum theory then quantum field theory seems like a much better place to start.
As an analogy, these attempts sound like a nineteenth-century person trying to understand gravity starting from F = m g h rather than F = - G m1 m2 / r^2.
For these reasons I would not be supportive of significant funding for theoretical or experimental research in these collapse theories.
Indeed, we have not tested experimentally whether launching andi999 into space will affect the muon g-2 anomalous magnetic moment. Although you might be very supportive of testing that hypothesis, I would sincerely doubt that it would lead to a discovery of new physics.
In the end this boils down to funding decisions for the sciences, which are invariably nuanced, difficult and political. Simply saying 'we should try because nobody else has' would convince only the most naive of funders.
Especially physicists. As the joke goes, people who think they understand QM, don't.
The fact "infinitely many universes spawned infinitely frequently" is a serious take on explaining QM suggests everyone who has a casual explanation about all of this has missed a few things.
We can probably devise some interesting experiments when we have conscious human observers within the apparent independent wave function.
As for the QM interpretations, honestly all of them are outrageous in their implications, if you truly analyze them.
- Copenhagen interpretation can't determine where to draw the line between quantum and classical, and yet says at that line the probability wave collapses. It also has non-local implications, without defining a timespace reference for this non-local effect (i.e. it says things like the wave collapses "everywhere" without describing mechanism for it, and it collapses "now" without noting that "now" has no meaning on universe-wide scale).
- Pilot wave and QFT have the same problems as Copenhagen.
- Superdeterminism decides cause and effect is just an illusion and everything is determined from initial conditions, but has no explanation for the elaborate cause-effect reality we observe at every moment.
- Many worlds requires literally infinite universe clones to spawn at every moment of time.
There are few more but they have similar issues.
Kidding aside, the overall point was putting macroscopic objects in superposition, be it mechanical or biological, might yield opportunity for new experiments.
Here's what's not science: someone's subjective emotional opinion about what "has place" in science and what doesn't.
Also, Roger Penrose who recently WON A NOBEL PRIZE makes some very strong connections between QM and consciousness. Which you're clearly ignorant of.
So not only you're wrong about what science is, you're even factually wrong about what leading and awarded scientists believe and propose.
People like you, who decide what has "place" in science and what doesn't have called Einstein's Relativity "fake Jew science" back in the day, simply because (racism aside) they didn't like the complex implications of his theory.
Think hard if you actually care what science is, or you're looking to lazily identify easy enemies to call quacks based on keywords like "consciousness", despite you're clearly uninformed on the subject. An intellectually honest person in your place would take a step back and maybe even apologize.
If you do some reading you'll see Hameroff (who cares about penrose) isn't operating in good faith.
I don't see your point about "fake jew science", relativity is very different from "the neural correlate of consciousness necessarily exploits quantum phenomena".