The Cross-Examination of John Franklin Enders
A courtroom drama inspired by ViroLIEgy Newsletter
From ViroLIEgy Newsletter: ViroLIEgy 101: Logical Fallacies
The flawed reasoning ingrained within the foundations of virology has infected the minds of those who consider themselves rational thinkers. Read the entire Substack here:
Mike Stone writes: “At the core of virological research lies the assumption of an invisible pathogenic entity, with the “gold standard” cell culture experiment frequently portrayed as conclusive evidence of “viral” existence and pathogenicity. Yet, when one examines the methods closely, this experiment at the very heart of the field is fraught with logical fallacies that permeate deep into the core of virology—namely begging the question, affirming the consequent, and the false cause fallacy.”
Mike points out these fallacies were utilized by John Franklin Enders in his original 1954 paper establishing the cell culture experiment when he assumed that the CPE (Cytopathogenic effect) that occurred in his “infected” cultures was evidence that he has “isolated” the cause of the effect in the measles “virus.”
Based on his Substack I instructed ChatGPT to create a courtroom drama based on Mike’s Substack titled ‘The cross-examination of John Franklin Enders.’ A prosecutor exposes the fallacies in Ender's research in a blistering cross-examination. Check it out.
The Cross-Examination of John Franklin Enders
Act 1: Setting the Scene
The courtroom is a grand, imposing space, filled with the quiet hum of anticipation. At the center of the drama is the witness stand, where John Franklin Enders, an elderly virologist of great renown, takes his place. The prosecutor, an astute and sharp-minded figure, stands poised to begin the cross-examination. The judge, a stern and authoritative figure, presides over the court, with a jury carefully watching every move.
Act 2: The Opening Salvo
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you are a highly respected figure in the field of virology, credited with groundbreaking work that has shaped our understanding of viruses. Would you agree with that characterization?"
Enders: "Yes, I would. My work on the measles virus, among others, has been instrumental in advancing medical science."
Prosecutor: "Indeed, your work has had far-reaching implications. However, I must challenge the very foundation upon which your research stands. You see, Dr. Enders, your experiments, particularly the cell culture experiment you conducted in 1954, are based on a series of logical fallacies that have gone unchallenged for decades. Let’s start with the concept of 'begging the question.'"
Enders shifts slightly in his seat, his expression neutral, but the tension in the room is palpable.
Act 3: Unveiling the Fallacies
Prosecutor: "You assumed, without direct evidence, that the pathogenic virus you believed to be present in the patient’s fluids was the cause of the cytopathogenic effect (CPE) observed in your cultures. Isn't it true that this assumption is a classic example of the 'begging the question' fallacy?"
Enders: "The presence of CPE was consistent with viral infection, and it was a reasonable assumption based on the scientific knowledge of the time."
Prosecutor: "Reasonable? Or convenient? You never directly observed the virus before conducting your experiments. You simply assumed its existence and then used the very effects you attributed to it as proof of its existence. Dr. Enders, isn't it true that your entire experiment was based on circular reasoning?"
Enders: "I would disagree with that characterization. The CPE provided strong evidence of viral activity."
Prosecutor: "Strong evidence? Or merely a fallacious interpretation of the data? Let’s move to another fallacy embedded in your work—'affirming the consequent.' You concluded that because you observed CPE, a virus must have been present. Yet, as you admitted in your own writings, there are many other factors that could cause this effect. Isn’t it true that your conclusion was not only premature but also logically flawed?"
Enders: "Other factors could influence CPE, but the patterns we observed were consistent with viral infections."
Prosecutor: "Consistent? Or simply convenient to your hypothesis? You assumed causality where there was none. By attributing CPE solely to a virus, you ignored other possible causes—thus committing a 'false cause' fallacy, wouldn’t you say?"
Act 4: The Climactic Revelation
Enders hesitates, the confidence in his voice wavering slightly.
Prosecutor: "Dr. Enders, you knew there were other explanations for the CPE—environmental factors, the composition of the culture medium, even the age of the cells. Yet, you chose to attribute this effect to a virus without definitive proof. Isn't it true that your entire experiment was built on a series of unfounded assumptions and logical errors?"
Enders: "The methods we used were the best available at the time."
Prosecutor: "But that does not absolve them of the logical fallacies they contained. By failing to account for these errors, your work has perpetuated a flawed understanding of virology, one that has influenced countless subsequent studies and medical practices. Dr. Enders, isn’t it possible that the entire field of virology, as it stands today, is built on a house of cards?"
Enders remains silent, his face etched with the weight of the prosecutor’s words.
Act 5: The Verdict
The courtroom is still, the jury and audience hanging on every word. The prosecutor steps back, having planted seeds of doubt not only in the jury’s mind but perhaps in the mind of John Franklin Enders himself. The judge’s gavel signals the end of the cross-examination, but the implications of what has been uncovered resonate long after the court is adjourned.
As the scene closes, the audience is left to ponder the foundation of modern virology and whether it stands on solid ground or if, as the prosecutor suggested, it is built on a fragile framework of logical fallacies.
Epilogue:
The drama of the courtroom is a microcosm of a larger debate that challenges the very foundations of medical science. The cross-examination of John Franklin Enders serves as a stark reminder that even the most respected scientific disciplines must be held accountable to the rigors of logical reasoning and empirical evidence.