Good science requires a tension between hypothesis generation and skepticism. Perhaps if we rewarded the _debunking_ of findings as much as we do the discovery of findings, things would change.
The funding bodies etc, who want "quantitive" measures of research look at publications. Why would we expect debunking papers be published if they are debunking something interesting?
That said, it also seems like low hanging fruit. At least in some fields, replication should be a lot cheaper than doing things in the first place -- because a lot of the cost in pissing about trying to find something that even seems to work.
For funding bodies to explicitly support replication studies, even if each gets only 20% of the amount the original studies get should be a winner at reasonably low cost.
"In the review process they did not disagree with my points at all, but they refused to publish the correction on the grounds that they only publish the very best submissions to ASR." http://andrewgelman.com/2016/02/22/its-too-hard-to-publish-c...