Fear was overblown, but I don't think anyone was using it for anything other than what they thought was safety.

I'm not highly read on the criticisms, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone vaguely influential invoked the CERN hysteria to argue for reducing the funding of basic research. But I don't have a cite for you.

I highly doubt this. All plausible major x-risks appear to be man-made. Slowing down would give us more time to see them coming. Why would it undercut our ability to deal with a disaster?

It's not clear to me that asteroid impacts, major plagues, or becoming caught in a Malthusian trap are not x-risks on the same order of magnitude as man-made x-risks. (Yes, a Malthusian trap is man-made, but it can't necessarily be prevented by stopping scientific research). And for man-made x-risks, what is the mechanism for "seeing the disaster coming" that isn't essentially doing more research?