Actually, I wouldn't get too worried about black hole research. Black holes "evaporate" over time (the Hawking radiation that we detect coming off black holes doesn't come from nowhere, it's a mass-energy conversion, effectively). The larger the black hole, the slower it evaporates. By which I do not mean it takes longer, I mean the rate of evaporation is slower; the radiant energy:mass ratio is smaller. Conversely, the smaller a black hole is, the faster it evaporates.
How long are we talking about, here? Well, for a black hole of one solar mass (mass equivalent to our sun), the total evaporation period is roughly 10^63 years, or longer than the universe is expected to survive. However, this is a lot of mass. To create a black hole that would live for one full second, you need to create one with a mass of more than 2E5 kg - around 250 short tons.
The Schwarzchild radius (event horizon) for a black hole is r=(2Gm)/(c^2), where r is the Schwarzchild radius, G is the gravitational constant (6.67E-6 m^3 s^-1 kg^-1), m is the mass of the black hole, and c is the speed of light (roughly 3E8 m s^-1). So, for our 1-second black hole, given that I haven't made any stupid mistakes in my powers-of-ten, you have an event horizon on the order of 1.0E-25 meters, or 0.0000000000000000000000001 meters. For comparison, a hydrogen atom is roughly 5E-11 meters, or 0.00005 meters. For anything significantly outside the Schwarzchild radius, the gravitational pull is no different than the same mass if it weren't a black hole. So, to your average atom wandering past this black hole, it's no different than wandering past 250 tons of whatever.
Of course, this all assumes that our current understanding of black holes is accurate...but then, if it isn't, what they've created isn't "really" a black hole either, is it?
For more information, check out these sites, or google "black hole evaporation":
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/H/Ha/Hawking_radiation.htmhttp://www.alcyone.com/max/writing/essays/black-hole-evaporation.html