I have, but that is just one point of view, which I happen to disagree with. Given a mortal life, you have to cling to what you can carve out. You're going to die and your current ideas are all you're going to get; anyone who overthrows them is a threat to your 'legacy'.

With an immortal life -- assuming physical decay is arrested with immortality -- you have endless time to reconsider your ideas and expand on them using your wealth of knowledge and experience.

I don't see Planck's principle as inevitable, but an aberration that we can cure.

Why is scientific progress more important than life itself?

Would you tell a society of immortals living in an idyllic and peaceful village that they need to die "for science?"

Societal issues can be solved without science. Once you tackle scarcity and long+healthy lives, science becomes much less important.

Anyways, the pace of scientific progress is irrelevant if you live forever. You would experience infinitely more net progress if you were immortal.