The code analogy is ok, but remember that the natural sciences are not engineering - a problem to be overcome. There is great value in publishing negative resu

The code analogy is ok, but remember that the natural sciences are not engineering - a problem to be overcome. There is great value in publishing negative results in the form "I hypothesized X, did Y, and turned out X was wrong". It's my experience these negative results are often well controlled and trustworthy as there are few things that make one trust a method as much as holding onto it for dear life because you have spent so much time building it. Incidentally that's not always as true for positive results where the incentives are tilted towards stopping once you get ahead.