Science is an activity (Angst reduction) for society.
The group of scientists also form a society.
The act of sciencing is a ritual, for invoking (dealing with) the unknown.
The rite of science, is an admission into the role of a scientist sciencing science.

Scientists form a society which is only partially independent.
As a guild, science is dependent of the system of money (‘gold’).
As a trade, science (thus) caters to (serves) the highest bidder.
This can make scientists, thus science, mercenary, thus corrupt.

Just a reminder: the basic outcome of the Nuremberg Nazi Hearings:
Whoever gives/follows order is responsible for the outcome.
UN-like medical doctors, scientists do not swear to ‘do no harm’.
We can see the result: planetary pollution and devastation of life.

Science, as a society, is irresponsible; should we call it … corrupt?
It is mercenary mercantile, and many members act like “prostitutes”:
“They do their best, whatever it is, as long as they get ‘their money’”.
This places science in the social shady ‘sub-criminal’ groupings.

What is the difference between science and pickpockets and assassins?
Scientists have killed more people by producing toxins and weapons.
Scientists have charged more for their expertise; regardless of the buyers.
What would be needed for scientists, thus science, to be responsible?

This shift the question/perspective to ‘what forms a society?’.
We know that a society is a, any, group of people.
What defines a society if rules of conduct that those people share.
Most often that implies rules for admission (Rites) and expulsion.

Not much is said about the definition of rules of sub-societies.
This is the social level of the effect of one social society on another.
In this case: the extent to which scientists affect the life of other people.
By, i.a., the bridges and buildings they create, but also the toxins and weapons.

As mentioned before scientists are mercenary in their attitude and conduct.
The society of scientists has no rules (on ‘oaths’) to prevent abuse of power.
In this case ‘knowledge is power’, and the power of science can be devastative.
Would an oath, such as that of the doctor, suffice to avoid crimes by science?

Evidently not, because we can see that the ‘oath’ does NOT suffice in the case of doctors.
There were many medical experts on the panels of the tobacco companies selling toxins.
There are many MD’s who oppose natural-therapy use, known to be cheap and effective.
It is evident that national law is no help in case: as shown by the health abuse by the FDA.

The FDA, in the U$A, is the federal government agency for food and drug use regulation.
As is, it turns out that the FDA does not work for the benefit of the health of the public.
Instead it is clear that the FDA promotes the interest of the pharmaceutical corporations.
In fact, the Federal Government of the U$A is not a society by a (foreign) corporation.

It is a story in itself that money is a social superstition (and its ‘laws’ a social imposition).
It is evident that the society/guild of the gold(smiths) controls the society of science, still.
It is just as clear that scientists can only be controlled ‘by gold’ is their life depends on it.
Which presently is the case: we cannot regard science without regarding control of/by money.