As they (The All Results Journals) proceed publishing negative results, the newer generation of experts will not spend their time and funding repeating the same studies and finding the same results (negative in this case). Negative results are high-level pieces of expertise that is deserving to be presented. Some authors have pointed out elsewhere the problem of publication bias, a well-known phenomenon in clinical writings, in which positive results have a better chance of being published, are published sooner, and are published in journals with greater impact factors. So this is a real drawback.
As scientists we strive for remarkable insights within biological systems that will further broaden our comprehension of the human condition, maturing, cancer, autoimmunity, etc. Occasionally the components just don't add up. These negative results in Biology force our next step at the bench but are infrequently published. Bringing to light these types of finding under peer review will strengthen our society for the greater good. If you make readily available a article about what didn't work you can build on the complications of others rather than simply repeat them. As an alternative of three steps forward and two steps back, Science could just move forward.
In Cancer research or chemotherapeutic development, for example, the trend is to publish data showing potency. We suggest that inefficacy could also be of good value to the scientific community. What medicines failed, in what types of cancer and why; the latter question albeit very hard to answer. One could consider the same tendencies emerging from this this sort of work in terms of gene expression profiling, proteomics and biomarkers. Agent X will not be beneficial in cancer Y because of overexpression of biomarker Z. A paper focused on the inefficacy of a particular chemotherapeutic chemical could assist in moving the cancer biology field forward by offering a community forum to share with the greater cancer research community the same negative findings that may have made a contribution to the development of a highly effective agent.
Just the tip of the iceberg are being published in Science; only positive results. Projects like The All Results Journals:Chem focus on publishing carefully executed chemical tests yielding negative results. These journals are trying to get out the water the complete iceberg (the total study, showing "All Results" of the author, the complete picture of his research topic, the real job done, not only the positive outcomes). Scientists have the responsibility to study Nature and inform all, and this includes reporting the negative studies. Even more: the research projects might have been funded by nation agencies, and that means public revenue... In part, funding agencies have some commitment; they should also push the publishing of all results (specially negative results) not only positive.