Leading Harvard Psychologist criticizes efforts to replicate experimental findings: "unsuccessful experiments have no meaningful scientific value"

As seen in this paper

On the emptiness of failed replications - by Jason Mitchell, Harvard University

Of note is the section entitled "Why the replication efforts are not science". This has raised the ire of a number of people because a fundamental of modern Science is the reproducible result.  If you can't reproduce it or replicate it, then the original results are in question.

The inability to reproduce scientific results has been a major problem for the social science in the past few years. Here we have someone whining that we should take them seriously even if someone else can't reproduce the research that the "conducted.

The paper was written by Jason P. Mitchell, principal investigator of Harvard University's Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory. Mitchell received his B.A. and M.S. degrees from Yale University in 1997 and his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 2003. He is currently an assistant professor in Harvard’s Department of Psychology. He was the John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard
The Less Wrong community blog notes:

This is why we can't have social science. Not because the subject is not amenable to the scientific method -- it obviously is. People are conducting controlled experiments and other people are attempting to replicate the results. So far, so good. Rather, the problem is that at least one celebrated authority in the field hates that, and would prefer much, much more deference to authority.