Working 2 years and producing a strong negative result is good science, but it doesnt get you published in a good journal.
My point is that it is a general statement of the human condition that you have to be right.
But a strong negative result is being 'right'
If I set out to test the hypothesis that strawberries cause cancer, and I find that they do not, and I can quantify the extent to which they do not, then I have succeeded. But Nature probably still wont publish my paper that says that strawberries do not cause cancer. ( Please dont criticize me for this example - I realize someone who sets out to test the hypothesis that strawberries cause cancer probably shouldnt be a researcher - I just chose the example to make a point. A better example would be whether or not histone flavors are relevant in DNA accessibility )
My point is that it is a general statement of the human condition that you have to be right. You can work for two years and produce a strong negative result in any field of life. To create a product and release it, is, ultimately, an experiment. If I spend two years working on a product, then sell it, and find out x,y,z is wrong with it. Will I have learned a lot? Yes. But, it doesn't help pay the bills.
Of course, but the point of releasing a product isnt to determine whether or not it is a good product. It's to make a successful product. A better analogy would be a consulting firm that was hired to determine whether or not a product release will be successful. Like scientists, this hypothetical consulting firm could be 'right' whether or not they said the product would be successful. To extend the analogy, what if the firm got paid more if they said the product would be successful? Dont you think that would bias their results?
Indeed, if someone did spend two years researching something and then finding out that their model was wrong in some way,
It's important to make a distinction between a model being wrong, and it not telling you what you expected to see. If I model global warming, and my model's predictions dont line up with reality, I've failed at being a scientist and dont deserve to be published. However, if my model predicts that global temperatures are unrelated to CO2 levels and future observations validate my results, then I've been successful ( and a good scientist ) but I bet I wont get nearly as much stimulus money as if my model had predicted the opposite.