Given all of the deleted comments I'm assuming an argument started. That's a shame
The annals of science are filled with successes. Only in footnotes do we hear about the failures, the cul-de-sacs, and the forgotten ideas. Failure is how research advances. Yet it hardly features in theoretical perspectives on science. That is a ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This is a (pretty long) article about the value of failures in science. It uses Grandmother Cells as an illustrative case, so might appeal to those interested in neuroscience.
The paragraph below particularly resonated with me. The “impact” and “relevance” of research is such a key aspect of securing funding and there is a constant pressure to have "successful" outcomes. I do feel that the system doesn't acknowledge that the majority of your work will have absolutely no beneficial impact on society, but it is still essential work in order to make discoveries that could be significant.
It is one thing to say that science fails and that we should think about the decisive role of failures. It is another to highlight the particular aspects of failure that benefit our concrete dealing with science. Different attitudes toward science from the practitioner to the non-expert are the easiest to situate the lack of understanding of failure’s role in the scientific process. Such divergence of attitudes is apparent when it comes to the status of the scientific method. The scientific method is our most popular characterization and explanation for the success of science. But it has limits when it comes to reality. Being a traditional analytical tool and teaching device, it also paints a problematic picture of science because it never makes explicit the ubiquitous presence and influence of failures at the laboratory bench and modeling board (Medarwar, 1959/1999; Firestein, 2015; Schickore, in review).