Starts with a Bang has an interesting blog posting on supersymmetry, and makes the case that if it's present in nature, then barring a very narrow set of circumstances, we should already be seeing evidence for it:

They talk quite a bit about how attractive supersymmetry is - and it is! It promised to provide the answers to some really fundamental questions, and do them with the same ease Standard Model did for some questions.

I didn't realize quite how much theoretical space has been shrunk by experiments.

Starts with a Bang said:

If they’re not there, then this isn’t the right story. At this point, the theoretical hoops being jumped through to keep SUSY “viable” (and yes, that belongs in air quotes) given our experimental null results are getting progressively more and more extravagant. I’m not much of a betting man, but if I were, I’d say that SUSY is already dead. It’s just waiting for the coffin nails to be hammered in.

If you type "is string" in Google right now, the top suggestion is "is string theory dead?", so I guess a lot of people are curious, at least.

There has been a LOT of brain power pulled into the vortex of string theory. One wonders what's going to happen if perceptions of its viability change.

Now, this article is particularly old now (2007), but I found it particularly intriguing to look in the comments section to see what people were talking about: it's by Sean Carroll and Peter Woit and John Horgan show up. Peter has noted that something is up when people in that field are having debates, not just on the finer points, but whether String Theory counts as scientific or even a theory.

(From that article, I also take away that Peter Woit has one of the best, even-handed modes of communication for a 'renegade' that I've ever seen.)