Studies that seek to replicate/ confirm work are rarely funded. Similarly studies that are too radical from more standard paradigms are also neglected.
It seems that incremental novelty that can logically be inferred tends to be the most attractive to funding agencies/ review committees.
In some ways it seems a bit like a bell curve with the probability of being funded (y axis) vs the radical nature of the proposed research (x axis).
This is an oversimplified view but something that struck me.
I can speak to the fact that this is absolutely the case in the physical sciences.