Null results are important in science, but that doesn't mean scientists want other people to see theirs. The reason is obvious: competition.  If one group has a null result and another group is working on something similar, they potentially give the competitor a shortcut by publishing a negative result.

So it goes in just about every field. The food industry has its own null results, but they can be a lot more expensive.  The failure rate of new product launches is a shocking (to outsiders) 50%. It seems shocking because these are experts, armed with expensive demographic analyses and psychological information on the marketplace. They should know what people want.

How will the Universe end?  And when? It's been speculation in religion and philosophy since man realized he was special.  Can physics offer anything new?

Let's go to the Dark Energy hypotheses and see.  1998 really messed us up, theoretically. Until then, we knew the Universe had to slow down - well, theoretically.  But then the Hubble showed us truly distant supernovae and we got the uncomfortable reality that the Universe was actually expanding more slowly in the past than it is now.  That meant gravity has not been slowing Universal expansion, it has been accelerating.