No one in biology would be able to publish anything.
1) The p-value filter leads to publication bias.
-You should publish your results anyway, or the study wasn't designed/performed correctly. The raw data and description of methods should be valuable.
2) The null hypothesis is (almost) always false anyway.
-Everything in bio/psych/etc has a real (not spurious) non-zero correlation with everything else, so the significance level just determines how much data needs to be collected to reject it.
3) Rejection or not of the null hypothesis does not indicate whether the theory/explanation of interest is correct, so is inappropriate for deciding whether a result is interesting to begin with.
-Usually the null hypothesis is very precise and the "alternative statistical hypothesis" that maps to the research hypothesis is very vague, so many alternative research hypotheses may explain the results.
Imagine psychology... done properly. The beginning of a science.
(I realize that "beginning" is too harsh, but psychology does have very serious problems with replicability. At the moment, it deserves its tarnished reputation.)