>There’s also the legitimate concern about what happens if methodologies come out with null results — that is, if the only result a study can produce is to prov

>There’s also the legitimate concern about what happens if methodologies come out with null results — that is, if the only result a study can produce is to prove the hypothesis incorrect. Such a paper could end up being extraordinarily boring or not answering the essential question at issue. Imagine a headline like: “We don’t know which gene puts you at a greater risk of depression, but we’re pretty sure it’s not the gene we thought it was.” Isn't that the whole point of correcting for publication bias? The reporter saying that boring results are a problem seems to perfectly capture the actual problem.