That was the article's implication, which I'm not totally convinced of either. My sense is that the main problem is still the focus on "positive" research resu

That was the article's implication, which I'm not totally convinced of either. My sense is that the main problem is still the focus on "positive" research results, and a complete lack of sharing of anything that wasn't successful. "That research doesn't hold up in this case" isn't really a statement anyone seems to publish much. _Maybe_ that's exacerbated by private funding, though I think it's just generally a cultural problem within the scientific community. Perhaps a public source of funding would enable the opening up and sharing of "negative" research results, of which I think there is considerably more data for. But, given that universities haven't really done that at all to my knowledge, I'm skeptical of that as well. The last paragraphs of this article are what struck me as "anti private funding".