You could publish them as a listicle "10 falsehoods organic chemists believe!" Because behind most every null result was an hypothesis that sounded like it was probably true. Most likely, it would sound probably true to most people in the field, so publishing the result is of real value to others.

The problem arises that null results are cheap and easy to "find" for things no-one thinks sound plausible, and therefore a trivial way to game the publish or perish system. I suspect that this alone explains the bias against publishing null results.