Your comment, while thoughtful, is illustrative of the jump in rational. "Science builds our understanding of the universe..." is only partially true - science cannot address the non-physical universe. Logic can try and help us address this part of the universe, but the scientific method is generally restricted to the physical universe where experimentation can be done and observed through the five senses. "Science" is also not a time machine - it can make educated guesses based on present data about what may have occurred in the past. I agree with reasonable confidence, but sometimes I wonder how much reasonable confidence is more Inspector Lestrade than Sherlock Holmes.
You think the tools safe guard the process, when the very nature of humanity argues the opposite, that man will find ways to bend everything to his own purposes. Perhaps better to say that eventually the process, if not thoroughly fettered, will find out, presuming someone is interested and looks and has a venue to be heard with the results. Just as the religious institutions tried to stop the teaching of evolutionary thought, so too now we have raised up an educational and societal institution to teach "evolution" as "science". "Science" is full of institutions that are self-serving and centered around money as strongly as anything else, i.e. funding, tenure, publication. Pure science may be a noble goal, but you also want to be loved, respected, be able to eat and clothe yourself and pursue what is fun and enjoyable.
I think we would both agree that kids need to be taught how to use logic, how to apply the scientific method and process, and how to in general use their brain. But unfortunately part of learning is forming an understanding of the nature of the universe, life, etc - and education tries to do that as well (as do parents, friends, society and the individual themselves). But science cannot tell you what is right and wrong, what is good and bad. It doesn't explain bullies, puppy love or grief (it can describe chemical processes that happen related to those events, but it cannot explain the experience of living those events - there is a vast difference between having read about being a parent and actually being a parent - there is little difference between the particles that make up the Mona Lisa and my son's most recent crayon drawing, but clearly there is a world of value attached and experience that has nothing to do with the materials used).
And again, to give thought, the theories produced are very specific, and we intermingle pure speculation with hypothesis and theory and data on a regular basis. So when an evolutionist tells me, we are the result of random processes acting over vast ages with no "god" present and science proves this, you may perhaps forgive and understand better my vast skepticism. "Science" shows us an organized universe, that order is necessary for life, that life is dependent on a large number of variables being very specific values. We declare chaos unpredictable and then generate it with seven lines of code. We declare or not, but live by if not stated, values and precepts we struggle to reconcile with that viewpoint. In fact we bend all to show that they are merely products of an evolutionary process. Which again, is tantamount to saying "science describes the universe".
But I see you grasp that with the clear understanding that science is a tool we use to our benefit in engineering and science, but that it does not generate absolute truth. Science cannot tell you why you are here, or what your purpose is. It can tell you the biological and chemical processes that happen during the formation and operation of your physical shell, but it is mute when asked if we have a soul or what happens to "me" after my physical shell stops operating. It cannot tell us reality, but it can help us manipulate reality.
Yes and no on your thoughts on scientists. To get tenure, you need to be published. To be published you must do research, and it must be peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. To do research you must get funding. To get funding you need an education, related experience, access and a suitable idea. To get an education you get into a college and make good grades. To get a master you have to get accepted, get good grades, and produce an acceptable master's project/paper/what-have-you to your school. Now how many of those are dependent on "pure science"? How many are dependent on how people view the universe, who has money, what agendas are, and so forth? If you can figure out and track it down, there was an anthropological study done of the high energy physics establishment that is very enlightening (I really wish I could remember it as it makes so many good points for this sort of discussion).
IMHO, rational people are not necessarily better people, and being rational will not lead to a better civilization. This is a philosophical statement. Science speculates the methodology that produces specific measurable physical characteristics of the universe and then attempts to find experimentally if that method is flawed, then re-iterate. This can lead to better ball bearings, but it does not necessarily lead to better human beings. If we mean logical by rational, and logic is a most excellent tool we should all value and use, then what of emotions? What is their value, how do we deal with them? Are they merely chemical reactions to be manipulated to our advantage, repressed when otherwise? Are we to aspire to be Vulcans, or is there some greater worth in our humanity? You seek a passion for science, do you see the inherent disjunction? Science can tell you what happens chemically in your brain, but the value placed upon passion describes an experience and state we have no scientific way of measuring. Is my happiness greater or lesser than yours?
So this is our challenge - separate the truth and scientific method from the "theories" and "world views" and what not. Use it for what it is, not for what it is not. Be rational enough to realize what part of "science" is philosophy, and what part of your world view is philosophy and not science. The truth is that "science" is bent to use as justification for any number of things, and I'm sure anyone here can think of examples. Think of what has been done in the name of rationalism. Roll the snow ball down hill to see where it goes.