Well said.. a fully trained "scientist" should then be a philosopher scientist or science philosopher.. being merely a "scientist" negates fully half the spectrum of the questions.. if that.. makeing in essence a "scientist" a poorly trained technician..
I would tweak the argument a bit ... a grounding in philosophy isn't necessary to be a good or competent scientist. Most of the questions scientists deal with on a daily basis are narrow and specific enough that they don't have vast philosophical implications.
But you have to be a philosopher to be a great scientist -- one of the fraction of scientists who assemble the narrow, specific findings into a broader view. Like Sagan, Hawking, Gould, and no doubt scores or hundreds of others who don't have their PR skills but are well known within their fields.
By way of analogy, I don't need the guy who installs my kitchen cabinets to have an eye for interior design -- his focus is on making sure the cabinets go in straight and level, according to the plans he is given, and all the doors and drawers work smoothly. But I do need at least one person involved in the process who does know design, both aesthetic and ergonomic.
Most fields of endeavor are like that. Plenty of people can do their jobs well and skillfully without thinking much about the big picture, but they will generally be, and really must be, guided by someone who sees things in context.
Which is why some sort of introductory course in philosophy ought to be taught in high school much more broadly than it is now. Not just memorization of what various philosophers wrote, but how to structure a complex argument and how to spot a flawed one. It would have the side effect of helping make students less susceptible to ad pitches and political spin.