I am indeed speaking quite broadly, and finer distinctions like the ones you're making are clearly relevant. There may also be more than enough hypocrisy to go around. The question is whether the work of even the best, most idealistic and pure scientists tends not to have much of a downside, necessitating a coverup by hypocrisy and hype. If the great scientists are motivated by secular humanism or by faith that knowledge of nature is socially progressive, that might be the source of the problem. So it's not really science that's to blame, but the underlying ideology.