As I have pointed out elsewhere, science is for intelligent observers-- it is precisely the effort of said observers to understand, predict, and gain mastery over the objectively repeatable elements of their existence. That's just what science is, any other claim would need to be completely blind to the entire process. So when there were no minds, there was no science. That's perfectly obvious, and presents no philosophical quandaries. Once there were minds, observer-dependent effects were established within the language of science, and it has always been workable (and perfectly reasonable) to imagine the same physics was in play prior to the appearance of physicists, to the same extent that the physics works after the appearance of physicists. What works now, worked then-- it's a basic assumption of science that suffers from zero contradictory evidence. Again, there is no philosophical challenge there at all, if one only understands what science actually is.

Now, in terms of this "observer dependent" quality, it is important to recognize that observers, making observations, have access to no magical processes-- they have only natural processes at their disposal. As such, analogous processes occur inside, and outside, of formal experiments. Nothing about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle requires invoking something that an observer can do, that nature cannot do without the observer, expressly because the observer is of nature. The only thing the observer can do, that nature cannot, is science on the outcome.