When it comes to science there are some questions that are need of answering first before we should have any conversations at all on theoretical constructs or empirical data.
Upfront, my primary critique on science and technology is to say it shouldn’t exist at all in the present way that it is done. The reason is that it’s not serving all of humanity, primarily just the ruling class who funds it and regulates the institutions that codify what is and is not science. Any benefits to the people are only there as conduits for power to consolidate more power, since for instance it’s in their best interests to have enough people healthy to provide labor to build their stuff and people to fight in their wars. However there’s no fundamental wisdom or will of the people guiding what we are researching or how that research is verified. That’s all on autopilot controlled by corporations and a government system that in no way resembles the voice of the people that it pretends to be.
Also, it’s highly relevant to touch on Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein where the ongoing theme in the work is to ask the question to science, that just because we can do something, should we? Again, there’s no wisdom in science just a bunch of disparate 
data points we’re creating narratives around. Our stories written down as official science vary wildly in a spectrum of truth. Further, all science has bias to it, it’s nearly impossible for any scientist to be free of bias even when they are doing their best to be honest.
The ego is a clever habit structure that is great at rationalizing what we desire, and we are fantastic at lying to ourselves. Scientists aren’t often the most emotionally in touch people if you haven’t noticed. With their analytical minds and compartmentalized emotions there’s a high likelihood they are adept at creating logical sounding lies that happen to match up with what might be most beneficial to them or the company for whom they are performing research. So to act as if science exists purely in an objective bubble world is a lie. It is influenced at all times by power and personal bias at least in some small part, even if it’s just a lie that intentionally avoids asking the question if something is worth doing or if there’s another path to accomplish the goal.
Further, all “Science” is ultimately not decided by the methods of science, but rather what is acceptable to the ruling oligarchy. If the US government says something is science then the rest of the world must fall in line. In epidemiology that’s what the WHO is essentially codifying with international health regulations, which allows western hegemony to sanction nearly any country they want under the name of science. And the US controls the WHO like they control NATO and every other international body in which they’re involved. When you got global military leverage you do as you please in a dog-eat-dog dominator world. A side note, it’s ironic Trump tried to withdraw out of the World Health Organization when the US was one of the top funders and US interests are at the forefront of their agendas.
For a longer deep dive into what’s wrong with science there’s two articles on this site written by me and Bill Hawes that give a pretty good critique, some points here are included and a lot more.
Enough Science part I
Enough Science part II
