Now, straight to the point, who's going to pay for the repeated research to prove the first one?
It would do something about low hanging fruit in terms of testing reproduceability and since there is a published paper, the student has access to guidelines for setting up and reporting on a large project, which will help them learn how to do their own, original thesis.
Who is and who should are two different questions. The body who funded the original research should be best placed to fund the verification of the research. If the research isn't compelling enough to fund verification then why was it funded in the first place? And if the principle research group is requesting additional funding for more research that builds on the initial unverified research then that sounds like poor governance.
I realise that this simplistic view gets messy and confused when research is really academic led innovation and incubation.
Incentive for corrupting the data seems high, however.
Sorry for the informal language, but makes things a little bit more salty.
When the lightbulb was invented, Edison made lots of money, but I am sure candlemakers had plenty of incentive to fund research that hypothesized that lightbulbs emitted toxins.
But yeah, larger entities (universities, businesses) should also be factoring the cost of reproduction when they commission research.