I think the problem is that it takes diligence to design an experiment that is not biased towards the desired result. I also think it's a systemic problem of p

I think the problem is that it takes diligence to design an experiment that is not biased towards the desired result. I also think it's a systemic problem of positive results being far more rewarded (in terms of funding, prestige, etc) than negative results, which gives even more incentive to bias the result (intentionally or unintentionally) towards the positive, satisfying outcome. Imagine you have two social scientists, A and B. Scientist A publishes a positive result that resonates with people; it fits the social and political climate of the day. They give TED talks about it, and the result is reported in newspapers. Later experiments are unable to replicate the result, maybe because the original experiment was a little biased somehow, but nobody can say for sure and there is no scandal because there was no fraud. Scientist B is more rigorous in their experimentation and their work fails to demonstrate a hypothesis. They either publish the negative result, or don't publish at all. Which scientist will have advanced their career more? I think that is the problem.