The problem is that with many experiments, the result may clearly be not
successful, or the experiment may have ended prematurely, but it is NOT
a complete failure and has an avenues for improvement. Null results
often point to avenues for improvement. Most often, this is not an
"either/or" situation.
Since the experimenter may want to see the work repeated, and may have
plans to do it better himself, he is not willing to label it as a
failure and in the end - may take the easy route ... which is doing
nothing. "Doing nothing" preserves his ability to seek additional
funding with improvements added, whereas a negative report makes
continuation less likely.
In LENR, this kind of thing can be seen clearly with the Parkhomov
"replications" or lack thereof. There were many null results, but
several of those appeared to have slight gain, or else some other
redeeming value such as a radiation burst.
Of course, the equivocal results could be written up in a way that does
not prejudice future work - but then we are asking that the experimenter
be both an expert in the Lab as well as an excellent writer.
Nigel Dyer wrote:
Excellent article.
I have found that it is possible to find out some of the failures by
going to conferences and talking with people. For every field there
is usually someone who knows what has been done, and what has worked
and what has not. The problem is that this is very hit and miss and
the information is not very accessible, which is not a good way to do
science
Nigel
H LV wrote:
Why Scientists Must Share Their Failures
We don’t ask people in other professions to do it, but it’s vital for
speeding up progress in crucial areas of research from climate to
medicine and public health
By Ijad Madisch on April 13, 2017
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/why-scientists-must-share-their-failures/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_POLE_BLOG
