Abel, you have asked a very interesting question where you think people fear to report null results. This is only so, when people choose to be unrealistic and forget that there are interventions put in place where ever problems are historical and this could affect preconceived findings, as those set in a hypothesis. I passed through this situation when I was doing my graduate work.

I was evaluating water samples for micro-biological quality to establish suitability of the water for drinking purposes. My hypothesis was that the level of feacal pollution in open water sources would be low in the dry season; get elevated with the on-set of the rains; and, tail-off with dilution in my study area which relied on on-site sanitation systems for human waste management. Such systems, like the pit-latrines, soak-pits etc would be the sources of the elevated coliform and e-coli counts in my samples initially, which with more rains, would start tailing off, with dilution as a factor. With this in mind, I started my research. I took my first batch of samples to establish the baseline during the dry season. When the rains started, I went for the next set of samples. The microbiological pollution levels were very high in the first week, I was elated as this conformed to my hypothesis. However, to my surprise, subsequent sampling did not show the tailing off, instead it produced nil levels of pollution from micro-bacteria. It shattered my hypothesis, and as a young researcher, i was confused. How would I report and explain my findings? This became a predicament for one eager to get my graduate certificate.

The results had to be reported anyway. What could I do? In fear of reporting a results outside possible established findings, I sought the wise counsel of the Chief Public Officer of the Count. Presenting my findings to him, and seeing the worries of a youngster, he simply laughed and said " cholera had been a major waterborne disease in the County". So, immediately the rains set in, he continued "chlorine balls were lowered in all open wells. This effectively killed the micro-bacteria. Your findings, "he went on" were therefore correct. With this in mind, I reported the results in my thesis with confidence, and the examiners were very happy when I went ahead to explain the otherwise unexpected results.

The import of this is that, we must recognize that when there is a problem affecting the population, intervention can, and do change otherwise preconceived findings as those we set in hypothesis. However, as hypothesis are set in both positive and negative, we should have open minds. Having such a mind-set helps one to have an thinking -an attribute that promotes and facilitates the need for further inquiry as was in my case.

Dr.Saeed Mwaguni,

Good description of a fact and the conclusion is " ............. as hypothesis are set in both positive and negative, we should have open minds. Having such a mind-set helps one to have an thinking -an attribute that promotes and facilitates the need for further inquiry as was in my case". - This will encourage the researchers particularly the youngsters.

Thanks and regards

Saeed, Thanks for sharing this encouraging history on how null-results can still be grounded in solid theory and facts.

Kenneth, in this question "pollution" meant the anthropogenic contamination with substance, particle or energy that causes deleterious effects in natural resource usage, services, or function. I am not aware of a working definition of SETAC but would get back to you if I come across it. 

Dear Dr. Saeed Mwaguni,

Thank you for sharing your story. I completely agree that people fear to report null results and this may be counter-productive in different ways: from wasting time and research resources to creating a bias against negative results.

Dr.Kenneth - ' ....Photosynthesis requires it to produce oxygen and "food" for us'. Great!!!

Yes, it's right - Some consider CO2 only as 'pollution' - no respect for CO2. But it helps in keeping earth warm essentially required for human and other living creatures, and in producing crops for 7.6 million people.

So, a 'null' result has the most regarded contribution. Thanks for presenting 'CO2' in such a way.

Best regards

Saeed,

I am not a researcher and do not write papers. However, I do read research in an attempt to find out whether I can apply the findings in my work. Reading about the null results helps as much as reading the 'positive' findings. Thank you for posting this question.

Mr. Tim - ".....null results help as much as reading the 'positive' findings". It is hundred percent correct. But, in many cases, it is treated as 'failure'. So, the comments on the posted question will encourage the researchers particularly the young community. Thanks and regards

Asit

Thank you for complementing my answer to the question posed by Abel. I am happy to be associated with such open minded individuals.

Saeed

Dr. Saeed - The fact, you shared, is really impressive. Thanks and regards

Firstly my appreciations to Dr. Abel for posting such a fantastic topic for discussion. I also appreciate the response of Dr. Saeed. The main reason for not publishing the null results or negative results is out of fear or shame that our own colleagues may criticize or laugh at us ? in brief to save ourselves from humiliation.

I have also reported one such negative result. In one of the regions in Kerala State in India I carried out resistivity survey in the hard rock terrain to find out groundwater for one rural water supply scheme. Based on the resistivity results, a bore well was recommended. Once the drilling was started, at about 80 metres depth very high yielding ( > 10,000 l/hour)fracture was encountered in the hard Charnockite rock, but to our surprise and utter disappointment the water was highly saline. Till that time no body had reported saline groundwater from this region, including Central Ground Water Board, Govt. of  India. When I was discussing this with CGWB officials, they told it is for the first time they are getting this information from the region. This gave me courage to report the salinity problem in this area. However the problem did not stop here. Some geo-physicists started commenting that how I could not find out the salinity from the resistivity survey. To re-confirm my assessment, I further discussed the field results with the experts from CGWB, State Ground Water Department and also with one of the Geophysicists from Birmingham University, who happen to be in our institute on an exchange programme. All these experts could not make out anything wrong in our field methodology or the results. The reason for this was later explained as the limitation of the survey, as it is difficult to get signals of thin layers of lower resistivity value (saline water) within a thick infinitely resistive zone (hard rock).

Once again thank you Dr. Abel for starting a debate on such a delicate topic.