Science Hypotheses That Fail?

Question

I was reading an article (1) that touted an awesome finding in topological electronic materials to minimize energy losses in electrical conductors. They lightly touch on the rationale that led the researchers to a hypothesis that they ultimately [presumably secured funding for then] explored empirically.I've always thought that this represents the tip of the ice burg - the many *funded* scientific hypotheses that don't pan-out. To me, these efforts are equally important, and I'm sure the scientific community agrees. It's similar to the efforts (funding/time) invested in replicating claimed results.Does anyone know how these 'unsung heros' (to include both the researchers and benefactors) are showcased in science media? Is this done only through citation of the 'popular' papers with successful results?1.) MIT Uses AI To Discover Hidden Magnetic Properties in Multi-Layered Electronic Material https://atomonews.page.link/6J8Gm8xtF3ycqye48

jleyank · Accepted Answer

Lots of pharma projects fail in various ways. Some die without a trace, others die in a multi-author J Med Chem paper that describes the project after the patents and the other dust has settled. This gets credit out for the scientists w/o risking corporate IP.

trinovantes · Answer

If you're talking about negative results, they almost never see the light of day after they're finished. I occasionally see them in conferences but almost never in any peer-reviewed journals much less pop sci media.