It is popular these days to start with a narrative and make the data fit in. Rarely do we think about alternative hypotheses other than our own already established professional narrative. Because researchers today rely on their reputation they must defend their theories or apparently loose credibility. Ironically, the most credible scientists are those willing to admit they may be incorrect.
Scientists today often delve into the areas of political intrigue. When this happens the scientists pet narrative becomes a fortress that must be protected. No one can criticize it because the scientist will see it as a personal affront since his whole credibility has been placed on the line. This in turn turns peers off from suggesting alternative hypotheses because they know if they make such a suggestion the whole thing will become a fight. Even suggesting an alternative that is not as popular as the politically expedient one can result in aggression, ostracism and public ridicule. No wonder scientists often find hiding in their laboratories the most rewarding experience!
When scientific concepts are backed by politics you know that you are onto ground that is not necessarily scientific. So with that in mind, here is a diagram that covers all the issues today that arise during scientific inquiry. This includes the moral, philosophical and political reasons for undertaking scientific research.
"No matter what the Réunion study finds, its results are unlikely to convince the few critics of the plume hypothesis."