Abstract

In the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS), scientific controversies (SCs) are often viewed as essential steps in the development of knowledge and technoscientific artifacts. This paper addresses the lack of an orchestrated epistemological effort to assess the quality of knowledge claims (KCs) articulated during SCs. This study proposes a framework that bridges ontology with appropriate methodological techniques to evaluate KCs, considering them as ontological hybrids in which the social and epistemic are interwoven. This paper argues for the rehabilitation of the existential autonomy of the natural world, which has been overshadowed by an overreaction to positivism. By employing methodological bracketing, specifically that of positive and normative analyses, this study aims to assess KCs in terms of their proximity to intransitive reality and the socio-political dynamics that influence their emergence respectively. The second part of the paper applies this framework to the SC on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting a nuanced understanding that goes beyond the dichotomy of zoonosis and genetic engineering. This study highlights the impact of social factors on scientists’ epistemic stances, and the importance of public deliberation in policy formation. The contributions of this study are both epistemological and policy-oriented.