The general principle seems to be that any effort which doesn't yield a result (it failed for methodological reasons, there was no effect, there was not a signi

The general principle seems to be that any effort which doesn't yield a result (it failed for methodological reasons, there was no effect, there was not a significant effect, they were developing a protocol, etc) should be published so that other researchers can learn from the effort. But that principle doesn't sound specifically related to animals (or mammals, as this article mentions mice, rats and rabbits, but not fruit flies etc). Should the same apply bacterial or fungal cultures? What about outside of biology? Should someone studying psychology of personality who gets a non-result from a survey of psych department undergrads publish it? Should a materials scientist who builds a bad battery describe it in detail? Should I create a PR for every branch which I don't want to merge? At some point, any new endeavor can only start by choosing to not spend 5 years reviewing all the one-off failures.