Why Virology Fails the Scientific Method
In Episode 5 of the AntiViral series, I dig into a surprisingly contentious question: What is the scientific method?
Some insist that virologists faithfully follow it.
Others argue that there is no single scientific method, or that we’ve somehow “invented” our own version.
And, surprisingly, some even go so far as to claim that the scientific method doesn’t exist at all.
Anyone who took a basic science class remembers being presented with a systematic series of steps that science is supposed to follow. These typically include:
- Observe a natural phenomenon
- Alternative hypothesis
- Independent variable (the presumed cause)
- Dependent variable (the observed effect)
- Control variables
- Null hypothesis
- Test/experiment
- Analyze the observation/data
- Validate/invalidate hypothesis
This framework appears in textbooks, definitions of science, and statements from scientific institutions. It has been around for centuries, with its roots traced all the way back to Aristotle in the third century. For a deeper look, see ViroLIEgy 101: The Scientific Method.
The real question, then, isn’t whether the scientific method exists—it clearly does—but whether scientists actually follow it.
And if the method does exist, and virology does not adhere to it, then the implications for the field are obvious.
See more here substack.com
Neader image: CNRS News