Science is done by humans, which means it's going to be flawed. As a result, I think it's a pretty poor thing to put your trust in or to turn to for reassurance. I probably can't say more than that without bumping into forum rules.

I do think the "traditional" science model of the last 50-70 years where government labs and universities are the primary leaders in science has ended. The peer review process is apparently letting numerous errors through in many papers (you can look up stuff about the replicability crisis), and it's continually chasing grant dollars and funding.

As an example, where is the most "space science" being done today? I'd argue SpaceX. They are actually performing empirical testing and improvement to discover what works and to formulate new principles for affordable spaceflight. Maybe that's more engineering than science, but science without engineering is just words. Meanwhile, NASA and Boeing are making one-use spaceships with multi-year delays where changing one flawed piece requires 13 months of disassembly (one of the "crew transport" things, don't recall because SpaceX is lapping them so much).

We've also hit a lot of the low-hanging fruit in terms of discoveries, and it seems to require more and more super-expensive machinery to get any farther. The atomic bomb was built with a slide rule, and now it takes a few billion dollars and miles of underground tunnels to do more research into atomic physics. We do still have a lot going on the biological sciences side... whether all the genetic testing and manipulation produces good outcomes or bad, we'll see, but there's at least a LOT of room still for personalized testing and customized medication. Shoot, my wife had some testing done and they were able to identify that her body doesn't metholate or use certain B vitamins in a normal way, plus a few other issues. That's valuable information in terms of identifying specific-to-individual nutritional needs, and it's new and still growing and becoming more accessible.