Generally to discuss morals one needs some irrefutable core tenets. In science nothing is irrefutable. Science is not great for all things concerning man, becau

Generally to discuss morals one needs some irrefutable core tenets. In science nothing is irrefutable. Science is not great for all things concerning man, because we don't have a proper logically solid formulation for many things. I would prefer we have some moral core tenets that don't need solid logical proof. Like, "It's bad to kill". But to start from some irrefutable core tenets, generally creates only poor or no science. The main requirement of science is that in face of evidence, one must be ready to accept facts as they are. So, one can and should have a moral discussion on what research is to be done, but should not say "That's not science! It's immoral!". For example, if I was fervent believer that god had created nature heterosexual I might fervently deny the observed results that lesbian bonobo chimpanzees or gay mallards exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals because that would be an "immoral" discovery.