Well I don't know about all that, but just like wondering if a tree falling in a forest makes a sound if no one is there to hear it, what is the difference about a "soul" living on after one dies, unless someone is there to notice?

To me, it may depend on how you define a "soul" to be. It's not a physical thing, so can it be compared to one's "spirit" or "personality" or even "mind" as well as "thoughts" and "feelings" all of which are not tangible things, but they hold something of value.

While the word "soul" reminds me of my confusion in catechism when Sister Mary Michelle was trying to describe this seemingly shadowy object we all have within our selves, and it sounded to me like a soul was some sort of tumor, I am not particularly fond of the word.

I liken the word "soul" to be that part of our mind that processes feelings and ethics and hopefully shines outward to others a positive outlook, creating harmony and finding solutions. The only purpose of shining outward to others is to be able to affect others in a positive manner, so they in turn may reflect the positivity outward in their own lives.

In this way, we can achieve immortality, if our spirit of life, our passions, our ethics, manners, etc., are passed along to others around us and who come after us. So, with this thinking, a "soul" lives on after we die. But I'd say "in the hearts and souls of others" rather than just being released into the universe, but like all things, we are all just recycled atoms, so why not souls as well.

Roger Penrose (I must finish reading the Emperors New Mind) and an Anesthesiologist called Dr Stuart Hameroff.
That these micro tubules might be the seat of consciousness is an interesting and plausible hypothesis. That the consciousness might exist on after death is a further hypothesis built upon the shifting sand of the first. Hammeroff is quoted as saying
“If they’re not revived, and the patient dies, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul.”
So not scientists in general but two people who happen to be scientists speculating wildly and even then having their statements inflated through poor and sensationalist science reporting.
Science is a process. Observe, theorize and test. What survives the testing may be considered a useful model of the universe.
Science needs wildcards like these guys to produce theories to test. But what we have here is an input to the science machine. It's not survived the rigorous testing process that can output useful models.
But that's enough to provoke interest in a media that doesn't respect you enough to use words like "suggest" or "propose". Would we still click on a link that said "Scientists propose theory of consciousness that allows for persistence after death" No? I probably wouldn't either. The less accurate "Scientists say your soul doesn't die" get more engagement precisely because it's more controversial. Truth is orthogonal to click rate.

What scientists?

Microtubules or not, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I guess I need more information.