Hypotheses that cannot be sufficiently tested My understanding is that a hypothesis is not scientific unless there is a way to sufficiently test it.

Is it ever acceptable to present a hypothesis that cannot be sufficiently tested? 

I can imagine a situation where one has a hypothesis (A) that can be sufficiently tested via available research methods (e.g. a questionnaire) and another (B) that can only be sufficiently tested via other research methods that you do not have the resources to conduct (e.g. face-to-face interviews). 

Would it be acceptable to partially test for hypothesis B and collect some preliminary data for it in this fictitious questionnaire, despite knowing that this would be an imperfect test? But then, if the testing method is imperfect, would this truly be considered a hypothesis or something else?
Bose-Einstein condensation was predicted in 1924 and only actually seen in 1995. 

Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein in 1916. It was proved that they followed from general relativity in 1958. They were observed indirectly in 1974, and observed directly in 2015.

If "science" had been restricted to hypotheses which could be tested in the near future with available methods, then these predictions would not have been considered science, and it would have set physics back by decades. 

I would agree that hypotheses which cannot be tested in principle are unscientific.