Scientists want to
get published.
The probability
of getting published
increases a lot
if your study
or experiment
has a positive result,
or at least
you claim it does.
But, in reality, most
technological advances
are built on learning
from repeated failures.
Failed prototypes.
Thomas Edison was the
'king of repeated failures',
when inventing a light
bulb filament that worked.
Today's world
of science
usually ignores
negative results.
Roughly nine out of ten
published studies claim
to have produced
positive results.
When negative results
are not published in
well known journals,
other scientists
can't learn
from them,
and may end up
repeating failed
experiments.
The pressure
to publish
leads scientists
to spin results
in a better light,
or they may even
commit fraud and
manipulate data.
Up to half of science
experiment results
can not be replicated,
suggesting there is
a huge problem.
When funding agencies
reward researchers
who publish positive
results, they'll get what
they pay for !
But science would
move forward faster
when good scientists
who happen to get
negative results,
are just as likely
to be published
as good scientists
who get positive
results.
Academic conferences
should promote
honest discussions
of failed experiments.
Funding agencies
should support
good scientists,
who produce sound
results, even if they
happen to be negative.
A science experiment
does NOT become
important ONLY
if there is a
positive result.
Negative results,
or inconclusive results
can be just as important.