Yes, and that causes so many problems. As you indicate, all of science is easily biased by what has been done and what has been published in the past. Negative

Yes, and that causes so many problems. As you indicate, all of science is easily biased by what has been done and what has been published in the past. Negative results are essential for a complete understanding of science and when they are repressed, complete access to the globally available data set is not available. If I'm an ethically-dubious pharma or lobby group, I love this situation. I keep funding testing until someone comes up with a positive result by chance or p-value hacking - then fanfare that result all the way to the media and to the bank. (Negative results don't need to be seen) If I'm a cynical scientist, I take the money and p-value hack until I get the results my funding body wants, so that I have access to more money in their next round of funding. Now I'm far more successful than a completely honest scientist. In fact, the honest scientist will either seek to replicate what the cynical scientist did, or leave the profession.