This isn't strange at all. I interact with scientists fairly regularly and very few are fans of science fiction in any sense of the phrase.

Most scientists are normal people with an aptitude for a certain discipline, enjoy working on interesting problems, and had the luck of having encountered a mentor or two who steered them toward research. None of the ideas that drive the creation of sci fi are necessary to be a scientist. It really is just another career.

In fact, I can't think of a single scientist I (personally) know who became a scientist because of sci fi. (Which isn't to say that they don't exist.)

I'm a scientist who doesn't like sci fi much. I don't hate it, I enjoy some of it, but not the genre as a whole. I like Star Wars for the big pew pew spaceships as much as anybody but I don't like Star Trek at all.

To me, a lot of it just comes across as unimaginative. Oh sure, we've travelled half way across the galaxy to meet an alien race and it turns out they're Space Russians, or Space Jews. Maybe Space Ancient Romans for a change.

While I have read science fiction, it's not high on my list. I prefer various forms of history to SF and I have read one fantasy series (Katherine Kurtz). Perhaps I just prefer to look backwards to understand today (and the near future) rather than far off to anticipate the future? I think I'm more of a problem solver than a visionary.

I also have a problem with anything where the science (or engineering, I guess) isn't right or consistent in my eyes. I find such things TERRIBLY distracting, slaughtering what might otherwise be a good story. Anal, yeah, but then you probably suspected this as this is HN, after all.

This is part of the cultural problem. Why should anyone be called upon to justify their non-interest in something?

No one's being called out. I'm curious about how it works, so I asked. Thankfully not everyone here is as reactionary as you, and I actually learned something.