This is actually a major distinction between good and bad scientists, and between good and bad strategy for that matter. Good ones are agile and provide guidance on how to adapt in the face of negative results. They know how to hedge uncertainty by combining riskier studies with more certain ones, so there is always something to fall back on. They also do not drag people down paths that take years and have highly uncertain outcomes without providing a backup plan. The reality is that most weaker scientists are not strategic and do not think any of this through. They simply learn the protocol for producing a successful NIH grant application and follow that protocol until they retire, with little concern for the fallout around them.