Perhaps there is another way of looking at the Science Contribution question!

Brand Killer Robots reveal::

It may be that another way of considering the positive contribution of science vs. the negative contribution as thus: Science that ensures that mankind is not in control vs. Science that ensures that we never need to be in control. In other words, Science that ensures mankind is dependent upon it, versus science that can be applied such that mankind never needs to be dependent upon it.

You might call it "The Selfish, Conditional application of science", vs. "The Unselfish, Unconditional application of science".

An example of Science that ensures mankind is not in control (and thus is controlling of human beings) is todays poorly designed Internet computing interface, which cause people to (unwittingly) merge with their computers in a discontinous, disharmonic way causing regressive conditions that can turn them into zombies. See this article. Has your mind been damaged by poor computer interfaces? Perhaps you are an Internet Regressive?

An example of Science that does not place conditions on human beings, thus creating no such unhealthy dependency is Trevor Bayliss's clockwork radio for people in the 3rd world or water calibrated lens for glasses for the poor etc.

It is like anything in life. The Beauty is in the motive that intended the invention. If the motive for an invention smells, the result will smell too.

And vis-versa.