> Bialystok is not. “That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves,” she says. She's

> Bialystok is not. “That’s not how science works: You don’t sign a contract to not change anything in your protocol as the research evolves,” she says. She's unfortunately right -- all too often protocol, hypotheses and analytical technique are changed to fit each other, reach a p-value of 0.05 and achieve publication. For this reason among many there may indeed be value in sticking to original protocols and having to publish results. Negative and unclear results can be as useful as positive results, and what's ultimately published may end up less biased as well, which would be another plus.