That is what I am talking about. You can say that the individual scientist is caught up in the machine -- and he is -- but that does not change the fact that he also has a responsibility.

While I appreciate your point (and you made it well) I disagree with your conclusion. Every branch and subbranch of science starts with axioms. Every single area of inquiry has unproven starting points. If we already knew the real truth about every axiom science would cease to exist.

There are two main inquires in science. Sometimes people look into the axioms, other times they accept them because everyone else does and they use them to move forward. Science works quite well by accepting axioms as true. Science also works quite well by questioning axioms.

There is nothing wrong with accepting axioms, there is nothing unscientific about it, and there is nothing irresponsible about it. There is quite simply, too much stuff to look at. What is important in good science is to state your axioms (as your example did) and move forward from there. He decided to question that axiom and apparently made some discoveries (though I would have to look myself to corroborate). Both avenues are responsible science.

Science is not truth. Science will NEVER be truth. Scientific inquiry is the attempt to get closer and closer to the truth. It is nothing more than that.