The majority of neuroscientists ignore the question of how consciousness is generated.

Evidence

What Neuroscientists Think, and Don’t Think, About … (PMC / NIH)

corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
XREF: connects to: Human knowledge fails to answer life’s fundamental questions. — Leo Tolstoy, A Confession, 64; Science has failed to adequately answer how human consciousness developed or what it actually is. — No, Science Can’t Answer the Biggest Questions of Life and Existence

Science has failed to adequately answer how human consciousness developed or what it actually is. (similarity 0.84)
Science is done by brains and people, so claiming science can’t explain consciousness is nonsensical. (similarity 0.84)
Conscious experience in humans depends on brain activity, so neuroscience will contribute to explaining consciousness. (similarity 0.83)
Consciousness is a phenomenon that is widely considered amenable to scientific investigation. (similarity 0.83)
Understanding consciousness requires not treating organisms like machines and minds like code. (similarity 0.82)
Consciousness presents a ‘hard problem’ to scholars — how the physical body gives rise to subjective experience. (similarity 0.82)
Neuroscience progress has spread knowledge without producing self-consciousness (similarity 0.80)
As McGinn argued, introspection cannot tell us how physical processes give rise to consciousness. (similarity 0.79)