Careful vs Careless Contrarians?

I suspect that many other scientists (and ex-scientists) also have a soft spot for data that runs counter to the accepted 'wisdom'. There's not much fun in experimentation, if the results are always highly predictable. In my own case (largely involving studies on rodents), I was intrigued, for example, to find that the sexual dimorphisms in the Golden hamster were opposite of those seen in rats and mice. Female hamsters were larger, more aggressive and had lower adrenal function than male counterparts. This seemed to reflect the life-style of their desert-dwelling ancestors (males were simply sperm carriers). It was also interesting to find evidence that the dramatic adrenal secretions of foetal mice possibly signalled a readiness to be born. Defaecation by mice in the 'Open Field' test (for 'emotionality'), also sometimes seemed an expression of territorial marking rather than anxiety. It also tickled my fancy to (with much help), establish that the 'aggression' seen in isolated male mice, did not result from 'social deprivation'. It had been assumed that this was the case, when using these animals to assess the actions of potential psychoactive (mood altering) drugs. My evidence indicated that male mice were intolerant of eachother, so the animals were expressing territoriality when they fought. This completely turned the model on its head as male mice are not 'social'. I and my collaborators also examined the very concept of 'aggression', finding that conflict behaviours could serve a variety of functions (offense, defense and predation). Finally, I obtained evidence that, in male mice, the link between testosterone (male sex hormone) and aggression isn't direct. Testosterone is converted to oestradiol (female sex hormone) in the brain and 5 alpha dihydrotestosterone in glands. The former increases motivation and the latter produces the odour cues that elicit attack. This would make testosterone a pro-hormone. The thing about these 'discoveries', however, is that I had to accumulate masses of experimental evidence. Experiments had to be repeated, getting the same result. I then had to write the material up for publication (often dealing with issues raised by the referees and editors). The data was also presented and defended at conferences. This all took extended time. Some of my ideas matured and became accepted, whereas other suggestions simply faded away. Our current brave new world is characterised, however, by media-driven pre-publication of data, rapid publication journals (where the author often pays) and a largely-unregulated social media. All, make the pace of science more frenetic. It may just be a sign of my advancing age, but I now get the strong impression that some contrarian views 'see the light of day', with little or no supporting evidence. Immediate impact seems to be everything. I'm just not sure this is a very healthy way of doing science.