But that is always true once a hypothesis has been proven false (or at least not completely true).
Is it possible to look at this as a very large “fail fast” experiment? Given the limited funding, would it really have been better to spread it over many hypotheses, rather than pick the most likely, and test a minimal viable solution?
> In more than two dozen interviews, scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences.
It's one thing to go all-in on a hypothesis, but another to undermine other folks' hypotheses directly. Especially when your hypothesis has not produced any results for decades.
Even more so how soon you should rebalance funding if further progress isn't achieved with respect to your biggest bet.