The problem with this image of science is that in order to properly collect things we have to properly understand things we could be collecting. We can certainly do our best, but sometimes unexpected things happen. Take x-rays and their incidental discovery via the effect of x-rays on nearby photo-film. Totally accidental data collection from work at the bleeding edge, which was work that has transformed society as we know it. Another point is that in order for things like the lab equipment to be sleek and well built, we need to understand needs. This means that any research that meets your criteria is quite likely not at the cutting edge of anything. Most cutting edge labs I know look more like someone raided the hardware/electronics store to build some abomination than the Hollywood sleek and shiny labs you might be picturing. The sleek well built shiny labs you are picturing tend to be corporate labs and the like, doing work on safe and predictable things with well defined scopes. Translating existing knowledge into marketable products is a lot easier than discovering genuinely new knowledge.

This was after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in a secret, government lab staffed by the utmost experts.

It wasn't the "oh look, something funny happens if I do this!" stage of experimentation. This was after they understood what they were dealing with well enough to build and successfully use two bombs. And Slotin was supposedly about to move elsewhere and was working on passing on knowledge.

That's why it's so weird to me.