I kind of feel this way about biology research too though - yeah the stuff we can technically do is really awesome, but the vast majority of the studies (and the system that encourages it to be this way) just feel so algorithmic. Stories of past discoveries sound way more fun, like scientists used to actually just informally try things to see what would happen.
On the other hand, this could mostly be selection bias on which stories get passed down. I haven't looked into it rigorously, it's just a feeling I sometimes get when I see the cookie cutter study design/grant writing process going on.
They're also possibly playing the safe game and just chasing ideas that they know will get them grants rather than having the true freedom to experiment. In the times of the World Wars and Cold War I'm sure there was a lot of room to experiment wildly and potentially waste time/money as that was the risk trade-off taken in such desperate times.
On the other hand, this could mostly be selection bias on which stories get passed down. I haven't looked into it rigorously, it's just a feeling I sometimes get when I see the cookie cutter study design/grant writing process going on.