Science, itself, is pretty much neutral. There is no dark side or light side at the base of scientific inquiry.

Scientists do what they do. Robert Oppenheimer appeared to regret his role in the development of the
atomic bomb---after he saw what it would do. Richard P. Feynman, a great physicist in his own right and
a contributor to the ill-fated Manhattan Project, went on to win a Nobel prize in or around 1965. These
individuals and so many others, did their science because it was THERE to be done, not because it was,
would, or might be dark, light, or indifferent.
Now you might distinguish scientific knowledge from the application of that knowledge. The knowledge
science gives us can never be bad in and of itself, even if it’s sometimes used for bad purposes. But it
could be argued that that’s an artificial distinction -- in the real world, you can’t divorce scientific
knowledge from its applications. The point is that the gap between discovery and application is much
shorter than it used to be. And individual scientists can’t so easily shield themselves from responsibility
for the use and possible misuse of their discoveries.
But what follows from that? Are we suggesting it’s the individual scientist’s responsibility to somehow
guarantee that her discoveries aren’t put to bad use? Is that reasonable? Or even possible? An individual
scientist is just one person. If the military–industrial–technological–university–medical–pharmaceutical
complex is determined to produce high-tech weapons, or genetically altered species, or what have you,
there’s almost nothing any individual can do to stop it.

Another problem is that Science isn’t immune to Ideologies. Racism was once science proving that Jews
are an inferior race. Science started out as challenging the Establishment, but has now become the
Establishment and can no longer be challenged.
Quoting an Internet author, “Science in the west has largely become a dogma. A dogmatic religion that
goes largely unquestioned. Despite the fact that science has called for itself to be questioned in the
scientific method, the corrupt scientific establishment had forgotten the virtues of the past. The scientific
establishment has allowed their studies to be bribed and manipulated through means of peer reviews. With
works that haven’t gone through peer reviews going off as false science, despite the fact it is empirically
correct.
The current dogmatic ideology which is science worship, exists astray from the historic science that many
have come to grow up with. Science was a means to question and learn about the world and not an
unquestioned religion.”
An environmentalist raises concern that the current generation means science as a peer-reviewed paper,
mistaking science for Academia. And if it’s peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the same,
therefore approving it. The unintended consequence is, that when new knowledge emerges, new scientific
insights, can never be peer-reviewed. Ultimately blocking the bigger breakthroughs.
We are getting news that grants for research are decreasing every year and same time number of
researchers is increasing. In simple words, competition is increasing for getting jobs in the field of
science. Some will argue that science is for curiosity, self-satisfaction, enjoyment, societal service, and so
on, not as a carrier. But the truth is that the majority of us chose science as a career.
Science is a two-edged sword with career and service on both sides. Simply put, whoever decides which
one is superior will choose it. Some say that science is only for financial gain. Right in their way alone.
Curiosity was the foundation of ancient research. Today, the same is intended for money. But due to lack
of funding, a large number of researchers after working for years in science find it difficult to survive in
this field, resulting in selling their expertise to the highest bidder.