Use of intuition during an experiment and observation is rather strongly discouraged. One of the major planks in science is to be objective and repeatable, so if someone else can't do exactly what you're doing and get the same results, it's not science. And that rules out a certain amount of internal processes such as intuition.
Which is not to say that intuition has NO use... rather, it is useful before and after an experiment.
Even framing the scientific part properly can require a fair amount of intuition. It's one thing to wonder what is going on when you see something happen, or what might go on if you try something new, but if you have an intuitive grasp of what MIGHT be going on, you can put your finger on the cause in just one experiment instead of a dozen.
It is also fairly common to have more data than explanations. Scientists have measured a bunch of things so they know what's going on, but they don't know exactly WHY. And that's where intuition can also help a lot. Consider that many of the leaps made by the greatest scientists in history aren't made with incredible new equipment, but just by guys who saw a different way to put all the commonly known pieces together.
All in all, no intuition is necessary to plod through projects and make a certain amount of discoveries, but those scientists who are truly great undoubtedly have more than just reason and method... they must have a fair amount of intuition as well.