They will do and say whatever is necessary in order to get those grants.
Why do you think every environmental scientist is always screaming about how the world is ending if people don't pour money into their specific specialty?
If they said everything was going well then they wouldn't get any funds, because nobody cares about that.
They do. It's other areas where the null hypothesis is ignored. For example, if some whackjob P-hacked a study that shows that listening to Mozart makes you smarter, and you do another study showing that it's false, the journal will be much less interested in publishing something that shows an obvious falsity to be false, rather than a new "eating blueberries makes you smarter!" study that will have been P-hacked by then.
Science involves getting grants awarded.
They will do and say whatever is necessary in order to get those grants.
Why do you think every environmental scientist is always screaming about how the world is ending if people don't pour money into their specific specialty?
If they said everything was going well then they wouldn't get any funds, because nobody cares about that.
Same thing with clinical trials for new drugs.
Studies that don't show a positive result never see the light of day.
They do. It's other areas where the null hypothesis is ignored. For example, if some whackjob P-hacked a study that shows that listening to Mozart makes you smarter, and you do another study showing that it's false, the journal will be much less interested in publishing something that shows an obvious falsity to be false, rather than a new "eating blueberries makes you smarter!" study that will have been P-hacked by then.