> "It’s easier to publish stuff that tears something down than it is to build something up,” he told me wearily. “It’s not an enjoyable time. It’s not much fun.

> "It’s easier to publish stuff that tears something down than it is to build something up,” he told me wearily. “It’s not an enjoyable time. It’s not much fun.” If your proposed effect is real then you should have no problem in proving it. If it doesn't exist, or if it does, but is much smaller and doesn't apply nearly as broadly as you have stated, then of course you will have "not much fun" proving it. Especially if that fun means making tens or even hundreds of experiments, then exhaustively processing data to find some experiments with positive result and discarding the rest, then again looking for explanations why these positive result experiments are right, and null or negative are somehow flawed. Not only that, but you have to avoid contradictions with older studies.