Knowledge is what can be used, for good or for bad purpose, with good or with bad intent, by men. Knowledge itself is neutral.
Science is a way to extract knowledge from observation. To codify, if you will, methods which can transform what is currently known and/or believed, both qualitatively and qualitatively. You do not need to whitewash any scientific discovery. They are intrinsically morally-neutral. The usage that can be made from them isn't, but this use is done by humans.
So science is not pristine, nor is it .. 'whatever the opposite of pristine is for you'. Those terms do not apply. It is what people do, using the knowledge derived from it, which can be weighted in moral terms. Unless you would like some way to preclude entirely the possibility of anything bad ever happening, which seems to be the only adequate definition I can think of for what is called heaven in most religion... i.e. not gonna happen 'on earth'.
Huh? once again, you are confusing the means with the actual decisions and acts. You are blaming the pistol or the bullet for the murder. I do not know any atheist which would say that anything derived from science is intrinsically good. The actual atheist position would actually preclude this kind of attitudes (as, not justified by observational experiences). But, for the same reasons, things derived from science are not intrinsically bad/evil either. They 'are'. What you do with them can be morally judged.Without the speciality of the scientist, greed, fame and the need to harm and destroy, none would have come about.