Science, does not create truth, it approaches it - again and again.
It is not the central task of science to construct a hypothesis and then to prove that it is true.
It is part of the task of science to try to disprove hypotheses until all scientific means are exhausted.
If the hypothesis is then not yet disproved and independent experts, after thorough plausibility checks, examination of sources and data integrity, have no contrary opinion or doubts about the results, science determines that the hypothesis is very close to the truth with the greatest possible probability according to current knowledge and means of securing this knowledge.
Including the possibility that new findings can change this assessment. However, this requires neither a loudly expressed doubt nor the pressure of a decision maker, but a process of scientific integrity, see above.
In such solid scientific work, it is also important that, in addition to approach and assumptions, the current limits of scientific possibilities, the provisional nature of the findings and, of course, possible dependencies (and thus potential conflicts of interest) are clearly stated.
Unfortunately, science is discredited by less knowledgeable, patient and reflective fellow citizens out of an unrealistic and fundamentally wrong expectation, who accuse science of revising earlier findings. The urge for immutability is understandable, but in view of what science achieves, it is simply unrealistic and wrong.
