The nature of science is observation of dimensions with this nature of observation being a dimension of consciousness. Consciousness and Observation are alike in the respect that they are fundamentally dimensions, or in simpler terms spatial constructs. Everything with understand at its root breaks down to "space".
It is in this respect with Consciousness and Observation being dimensions of space that consciousness and observation (one for the sake of clarity and brevity equate observation to science) are fundamentally spatial "reflections".
Consciousness reflecting upon itself maintains itself as consciousness through the approximate structure of observation. It is in this respect that the nature of observation/science is strictly a reflective structure of consciousness in one respect and an individual entity in itself.
So when one asks the question "can science explain consciousness" a more accurate, yet equivocally symmetrical, question may be "can science define consciousness"? If one were to break this question down and understand the nature of what "definition" really is is many respect it is strictly the reflection of spatial properties. Take for example any geometric structure, the structure itself is simply the reflection of points and lines. At the macro and every day practical level we define people, places, and things through categories which in and of themselves are dimensions for a category is nothing more than an abstract spatial structure.
These definitions maintain their structure through their reflection of themselves and other spatial structures which in turn extend into other spatial structures. The root of these spatial structures is the nature of "reflection" as a unifying median expressed as a point (1 dimensional), circle (2 dimensional), sphere (3 dimensional). It is from the point, as the only fully symmetrical and unified median that we begin to observe the nature of all being, as spatial structures, strictly as an expression of the "point" or the perspectives of the ancients (such as Pythagoras or Plato) where "Divinity" and "True Being" was expressed through the circle.
It is this nature of the point as simultaneously maintain a form of causality through structure (for the observation of causality is strictly the observation of structure as "cause" and "effect" with "effect" itself being a "cause" reflective of the first) and randomness as approximation (the nature of "effect" as "approximate cause" within its nature has a degree of deficiency for an approximate is deficient in respects to the original. this deficiency is "randomness" as an absence of being).
This nature of the point as a universal spatial properties is itself consciousness, in one degree or another, in the respect that it's spatial properties are universal. The point, much like consciousness contains all forms simultaneously while retaining a formlessness as the "center". We see the nature of consciousness best expressed through the nature of Pi where the form of the circle, or consciousness is observed, however its center (the roots of consciousness) are the continual propagation of dimensions as number (or points which conform to geometric shapes: 2 = line, 3= triangle, 4 =square, etc.).
It is in these respects that the nature of observation and consciousness are one and in the same as approximates of each other and the reflection of one is fundamentally the reflection of the other. These reflections form the structures through which we not only perceive the world but also simultaneously manifest it.
Science, as an approximate of consciousness is in itself an expression of consciousness and as an expression of consciousness science always maintains a level of subjective awareness due to its roots in the nature of "the axiom" (as self-evidence). It is the formulation of axioms from axioms that science is nothing other than a expression of modern alchemy where the "axioms" it is founded upon maintain the structure from which we both understand inner/external being but also synthesize and propogate the inner/external being.
This alchemy, or maintenance and manifestation of flux is the root of the scientific method for the scientific method has only a few perceived axioms through which it functions and these axioms do not argue for the scientific method. In simpler terms, the scientific method does not have a scientific method to justify it other than pure belief in a system whose reflection of structure is confused for a reflection of truth, when it reality it is just a structure of consciousness. In these respects what we understand of the scientific method is strictly the understanding of consciousness as the observation of structure through geometry for the nature of science, as reflective axioms/points (of awareness), is strictly the nature of consciousness as percieving order through structure.
Science is the structure (much like a tool) through which we percieve reality for it is nothing more than a geometry of axioms that reflect further axioms. So what we understand of consciousness through the point, as a point within itself, is the nature and need for reflection as a form of maintenance for a point maintains itself through its self-reflection...how much more for consciousness?
To ask if science can explain consciousness points to:
1) Consciousness, through observation as science, self-reflecting to maintain itself.
2) Observation as science, through Consciousness, self-reflecting to maintain itself.
3) The relation of Consciousness and Science in turn causing a flux in the other through relations. For example if science defines consciousness, by the very act of definition consciousness itself is changed and as a result science is change and the beginning science in turn creates an approximate science which is symmetrical but not equal to the first. It is in this nature of science, as a field of flux, that the explanation of consciousness through science is in itself a change in consciousness.
One of the real questions that is one of the answers to "can science explain consciousness?" is: "doe nature of explanation change science and consciousness?"