I think it's disingenuous to say that this is what I said. Science participates in the dominant social structure and is interpermeates the processes and structures of violent oppression.

Shitty people doing shitty things for their own shitty reasons seems to be at play.

That is an incredibly farcical representation of how liberals conceive of society. It's just not true. These are systemic and structural outcomes, not simply morally reprehensible individual choices.

we just have different descriptions of who we think the bad guy is

Yup.

My view is that humans have the capacity for great evil

I don't believe in good and evil at all. Morality is a socially constructed technology for influencing humans. It's not real.

science itself isn’t the root cause of this evil

No one said it was.

is instead a catalyst enabling people to become famous as a result of it

The desecration of Mauna Kea has not made anyone famous. I dare you to name anyone involved in it without looking it up.

It’s the fame, in my opinion, that drives people to do these terrible things

What an incredibly unscientific perspective.

Science itself doesn’t really benefit, and is arguably hurt, by these actions, since there are likely other less harmful ways to research these topics.

Now you're moving way into the abstract by saying that science can be hurt. What you mean is that the process of "science" exhibits suboptimal outcomes, in part, because of things like oppression and colonization. I agree. That doesn't mean science doesn't participate in it all the same. You're crafting your worldview entirely from ideals and not actually engaging with reality.

Of course, I am biased. I have a career in science, after all

When you say you're biased, it's really important to understand what that means. I don't think you actually mean it in the literal sense. You actually mean to say that you are "prejudiced" - meaning that you have a tendency to make judgments prematurely and stick to those judgments even in the face of evidence.

Bias is a statistical concept about outcomes. When I attempt to throw a dart at a bullseye, if my darts end up to right of the bullseye more often than not, then we can say I have a bias in my throwing behavior towards the right hand side of the dart board. What bias does your behavior exhibit, statistically? Is it that your prejudice biases your cognitive behaviors towards denying the harms of science, to fallaciously attribute harm to anything except science, to abstract science to its ideals more often than actually examine how it functions in society?

This is important, because if you think of your prejudice as bias, then you can't ever examine what your actual bias is. Own that you're prejudiced. It's fine. We all have prejudices. I am prejudiced towards believing people who self-identify as communists have a better grasp of history and of dialectics. I am often wrong, but I still judge prematurely. My biases are fundamentally different than my prejudices. My network is biased towards white suburban men. My work is biased towards tech work. My friend-set is biased towards people who are often late to social events.

So, what is your prejudice, and what bias does it cause in your behavior?

Be scientific about this.