A response to "Nature and role of science relative to RH bill"

Flor Lacanilao, a retired professor of marine science, University of the Philippines Diliman, wrote a Letter-to-the-Editor and was published in the 3 September 2012 issue of  PDI entitled "Nature and role of science relative to RH bill". I thought of commenting on some of the scientist's assertions:

The objectives of science, as I learned, are not to find the truth. They are aimed to understand nature and the universe, so that researchers and the government can plan and act for the people’s well-being. Many studies are meant to support scientific consensus, as in evolution and climate change. Hence, these are factual conclusions—supported by valid data. They are not permanent truth; they can be changed by more studies. This is the progressive nature of science.

Science is not to seek permanent truth anymore but only well-being?! I wonder if other scientists agree with that definition of science.

As from what I gathered from my undergraduate studies in a public state university, science seeks the Truth about the physical world regardless of whether or not it will benefit well-being of peoples. Well-being is just one of the consequences of science: Theoretical Physics, for example, does not aim directly to improve well-being of people. The apparent non-permanence of scientific truth is due to the piece-meal approach of many studies. Instead by seeing nature of science as "progressive", I see it as "incremental".