Good question.

I think if there's a large corpus of research supporting a hypothesis, any research retrying that hypothesis in an insignificant way can be disqualified from funding. If you challenge the hypothesis, or adding something significant to the dark areas of that hypothesis, you could be funded.

Moreover, if your research fails to prove that hypothesis, or proves the exact opposite, that should be also printed/published somewhere, because failing is equally important in science.

In short, tell us something we don't know in a provable way. That's it. This is what science is.

This is what I think with about your question with my Sysadmin/Researcher/Ph.D. hats combined.