A newly published Viewpoint article in the journal BioScience argues that the contentious debate over the origins of SARS-CoV-2 could benefit from a well-established scientific approach for weighing competing explanations. Multiple working hypotheses and strong inference, argues author Alan B. Franklin (formerly of the USDA National Wildlife Research Center) could break the logjam of single-hypothesis reasoning that has marked the politically charged accusations that the SARS-CoV-2 originated from either an intentional or unintentional release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology versus from the proximate live animal market.
In the article, Franklin pointedly avoids a declaration of the pandemic's origins, focusing instead on improving our analytical approach to such questions. As he puts it, "My goal here is not to support any particular hypothesis but to argue for a better process to distinguish among these competing hypotheses, a process that should be guided by an objective consortium of scientists rather than the media and politicians."
Franklin describes the approach's origins in a 1890 paper by Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin, who described the "method of multiple working hypotheses" and contrasted it with the "method of the ruling theory," in which a single hypothesis is bolstered by selective evidence while competing explanations are discounted or dismissed. Franklin argues that the search for the origins of COVID-19 "seems to have relied more heavily on ruling theory rather than on multiple working hypotheses even though the question is ripe for the multiple working hypotheses approach."
A central obstacle, Franklin notes, is that the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. He observes that arguments favoring one explanation often rest on the volume of available data, but cautions that "the amount of available data is not a substitute for an objective measure of strength of evidence." The article points to precedents from natural resource management, where structured, quantitative frameworks have been used to resolve conflicting hypotheses, which are agreed on by neutral parties before the evidence is analyzed.
Franklin proposes a prominent role for scientific societies in such processes, noting that public trust in individual scientists to deliver unbiased conclusions is comparatively low. Because the societies are often seen as sources of unbiased information and can convene large and diverse groups, he argues that they are well positioned to bridge the gap between researchers and policymakers. "The involvement of scientific institutions in contentious issues, such as the origin of SARS-CoV-2, may garner more public trust in the outcome than would the involvement only of individual scientists or politicians," he writes. Following Franklin's approach may help restore public confidence in scientists and the institutions that support them.
The Viewpoint appears in BioScience, which is published by the American Institute of Biological Sciences. The article, "Multiple working hypotheses, strong inference, and the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic," is available at https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biag037.
BioScience
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biag037