Seems like a rough thing for folks who'd want to promote social-unity.
Because scientists work by aggressively cutting down bad ideas. The basic mindset calls for being efficient-and-ruthless in identifying-and-eliminating low-quality thinking.
If the world were a simpler place where there wasn't much complexity to deal with, then presumably scientists could afford to move along at a slower, more polite pace that doesn't leave anyone behind. But in a complex world where every answer just leads to more questions, scientists simply can't afford to show respect to bad ideas -- even if they would otherwise want to be respectful to others.
The result seems to be social-fragmentation: there's not just one cohesive social-group that involves everyone, but rather differing groups with differing standards.
This can then be a problem for social-mobility. Because, personally, I like the idea where groups are accessible; for example, I like the idea that anyone who's willing to adopt a scientific-mindset could do so, without barriers-to-entry keeping them out. However, if other folks tend to find scientific-thought caustic and degrading, then this same openness would seem to expose other groups to scientific-thought even if they don't like it, possibly promoting animosity.
Worse, this problem isn't simply dichotomous, but rather occurs many times over. For example, not all scientists are working on the same level; there's a lot of fragmentation within the scientific-world, too.
A funny consequence of this can be that scientists would reject more advanced science, too. For example, folks around Newton's time might've found ideas from quantum-mechanics and general-relativity to be absurd.