This question is surrounded by ignorance regarding science and also ignorance regarding the Dhamma. Philosophically speaking, the question assumes an objective reality does not exist: it assumes nature does not exist outside of one's own mind. This goes against all factual evidence (e.g, we are very sure the Earth existed before mankind came around) and the Dhamma. In MN 1 it is said that an untaught person
perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
This passage should be matched and compared to the view of the wise man, who
does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say.
Which, for people like me, indicate that the Buddha is both exposing the essence of anattā and the existence of an objective reality. It becomes even clearer if one considers paṭiccasamuppāda: contact (phassa) is a fundamental step, since the senses need to interpret an objective reality in order to feel (vedanā) something about it.
Justifying the existence of a natural world outside one's mind is very simple if one advocates humbleness: do not think the world depends on you. Many things depend on you, but the existence of the Sun, the stars, the electrons and even the nibbāna, don't. After being forced to admit such a tangible, objective and human-independent reality exists, it's really easy to see why physicists suffer as much as anyone else: since every person in the world has an occupation, some will naturally incline towards the study of such an objective reality. Since "scientist" is not included in (AN 5.177)
Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison,
this means the scientist has done anything wrong. Buddha doesn't mention the attempt to explain nature leads to bad kamma and terrible rebirths. He does, however, point that dealing with poison might get you in trouble. The objective of religion (in general) is not condense within its teachings all possible knowledge attainable: religion deals with soteriology, with the immaterial and mental, with the exit from a problem regarding man, not regarding natural phenomena. When people (at least me) say that Buddha was fully enlightened, we say that he was the understander and explainer of all that leads to happiness (as defined by Buddhism), not an explainer of natural phenomena. In fact buddhist cosmology, for many traditions, has lost its place as once a phenomenological concept, being now treated (by many) as an allegory.
The changes in society, along with the changes in scientific research, should also make us revise parts of the Dhamma. As an example, take the vision of perfect wife implied in AN 7:59:
One without anger, afraid of punishment,
Who bears with her husband free of hate,
Who humbly submits to her husband’s will—
Such a wife is called a handmaid.
Remember "handmaid" is what Bodhi chose as the best translation [nowadays] for "dasi", which means "slave". We shouldn't live in a world where a good wife is considered as a slave anymore, and the Dhamma should be revised regarding this - even if in Buddha's time, this was normal. We should also investigate nature and reality as deep as we can, and if the conclusions obtained using a seemingly fail proof method (the scientific one) lead to contradictions regarding some aspects of the Dhamma, then I know some lines of Buddhist thought are willing to change the Dhamma based on them.
I wrote this answer because it would be impossible (and against the rules) to post it as a comment to ChrisW's answer (which is very good). In resume, I was aiming towards explaining that no, science does not claim to explain everything. It claims to explain what is explains, and aims to explain what it still doens't. When science explains something, it explains it in a totally different way than religion: it's not supposed to be personal, but general and statistical - faithless. It's supposed to be measured and investigated by everyone and give the same results. That's why there are dozens of lines of Bubddhist thought, but only one line of science: if scientist don't agree, it means nature didn't act as we thought it would. We therefore need to go back to the lab and blackboard until we measure the proper result. Also, such a result does not depend on the observer, but it might depend on the observation. Depending on the observer would mean that each person would measure a different value for the charge of the electron, and this would be against the premise that everyone should measure the same charge, otherwise theory/experiment would be wrong. The observation, however, plays a fundamental part in quantum mechanics, but this has nothing to do with attā or mankind. "Observe" is a physical term that means: making a quantum system interact with a [usually] classical one, which forces it to change (obviously). Science will never prove or disprove any religion basically because it's not interested in them, since religion is not a component of an objective reality.
Religion and science no not mix, and a physicist is exposed to suffering as much as everyone else.
P.S.: If you can make a person cry and laugh using magnetic fields, maybe it's time to understand feelings are chemical, right? ;)