The author, while making a valid description of the scientific process, is misconstruing Dr. Fauci's statement, “a lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly are attacks on science.” as an assertion of authority or a claim that doubting him is doubting science when, what he said is that a lot of what appears as attacks on him are, in fact, attacks against science itself and the very scientific method the article tries to describe.<p>Furthermore, the political positioning of the author is completely exposed by his insistence that the question of the natural origin of SARS-Cov2 is an open question. If there is actually any evidence in favor of that, it'd be in the virus genome and easily demonstrable. In the absence of such evidence, whoever proposes this hypothesis would need to present a way to verify it and, failing that (no, a wild goose chase for an imaginary weapons lab is not a way to verify it, as invading a country because of WMDs was not a way to prove Iraq had WMDs - which they didn't).<p>Furthermore, when discussing Biden's “following the science,” he doesn't seem to perceive epidemiology is one science of many. Economics, Psychology, and many others are used to guide policy towards what provides what is judged the best outcome. In that, one follows the science to inform on policy decisions.<p>It is extremely disappointing to see such a dubious piece in the WSJ.