According to [[primary source]], the term is specific
to historical
scholarship, which doesn't include science. I don't know of any
Wikipedian who seriously challenges the validity of published
peer-reviewed scientific papers as sources for articles.
In which case, [[primary source]] is wrong. A source is primary if it
isn't based on any other source - that definition holds for any field.
There aren't many Wikipedians that challenge the validity of any
primary source as a source for an article - you simply have to be very
careful with how you use them.