Scientists also deal with the Heisenberg theorem, although you have a be a pretty bright scientist to do so properly. Most scientists aren’t good at conceptual and metalevel thinking, physicists exempted. Most non-physicists tend to think too small to make big strides. Many tend to design very poor experiments that don’t translate well to the real world.
Fact is, if you’re being passive with a pheromone mix, and you’re a man, you’re not doing a scientific experiment whatsoever. You’ve introduced a new variable with “male passivity”, and a major error. You’re doing something very unusual and unnatural for a man to do while you test, something that goes far beyond the “boo boo” of observation that Heisenberg observed.
You’re doing sexual role reversal. It is more typical for female to play the role of a “watcher”.
Men should play the typical role of men while testing, and women should play the typical role of women while testing. If you don’t, you’re not so much testing pheromones, as much as you’re testing male/female sexual role reversal. You’re doing a bunk test set against itself as far as the pheromone component is concerned.
All a big reason why I like to give actives and controls to normal office workers who don’t understand pheromones, and not tell them a darn thing about what’s inside. They’ll think they’re looking for dermal effects or something - you know, irritation. The less inclined they are to “sit back” and “watch” for social effects, the better. A man playing the role of an observer, in a sexual context, is not a man, and ruins the whole experiment.