Maybe a useful way to think about this is Positive/Normative distinction. Science is "amoral" in your sense, it's trying to describe how things really are, and

Maybe a useful way to think about this is Positive/Normative distinction. Science is "amoral" in your sense, it's trying to describe how things really are, and make predictions. So is the stock market: you're rewarded for correct predictions, whether or not others regard those outcomes as desirable. Of course we are also moral beings, interested in changing things for the better. And we have varying and contradictory ideas about what better means. As soon as you say "steer social structure at scale" the question is: who gets to steer? If this were obvious, then we wouldn't need democracy, we could just all work together not to "reproduce past inequalities"... but we can't.