I think you are missing the point about how science works.

You only get answers when you ask questions about a model (Hypothesis) conduct an experiment... sometimes good... and sometimes good as you can manage at the time which is not good enough.

The results comes back as the data support the model tested, the data can't resolve the question, or the data clearly reject the model. It does not come back and say TRUE.

You pay scientists to critically test ideas with a rigorous method. In the example you mention... the scientific process generated a complete alternative model and the experiments produced clear and convincing data for the microbiological model which outweighed the ozone model. (nobody has proven the negative here)

Do scientists have bias's... absolutely and it's part of the system... Your instincts lead you in a direction and you bet the farm... You believe your model and your job is to give it the best trashing you can... if it holds up under close evaluation.... great... if it has a critical flaw... out it goes. Scientists unlike true believers and faith based individuals move on.

The problem is that scientists can't explain to politicians and the public this process and these folks want definitive ANSWERS when such things may not exists. Nobody wants a maybe...(Its like a doctor giving a patient the answer... I don't know... i don't have a diagnosis... Not good enough!.. People will go to the next doc and get one....) The language used to explain the state of the art to the public becomes similar to that used in faith based discussions or political discussions.

So... you are left with bashing National Geographic for not retracting their story. Bashing "so called scientists" as craven money grubbers who followed a political agenda and you believe that some noble individual saved the day for truth justice and the American way. It's a great sad story that does not move the ball forward.