Science tends to be funded by trends. These trends expand out a particular research area but does the chase for money distort the science. Let's say you have a new theory that's your life work. You come to the end of it with a fuzzy result. To continue funding its beneficial to have could be areas. whilst I am not trying to imply dishonesty in any way. I do question the funding approach. It should be acceptable that it's a dead end and move on.