Science by it's very nature is amoral.
In science anything that is possible is permissible.
Science not tempered by morality is a very dangerous place..
Who said, "Without God, everything is permissible."
I suppose you could see it that way. I myself am put off with this altar status of amorality and content neutrality bit floating around nowadays. They push it in the courts, you know. I don't trust it, no, not at all.
To put it straight, there is no science without thought. We do science. We think it. No thought, no science. Remember your old Latin, scientia. It means knowledge. In a real way, science is the scientia of the human person. And isn't the human person a moral being? When knowledge is thought to be amoral, I think there is a serious misunderstanding. It begins to bifurcate or life, to split it. And then we become alienated from the world we know we loved.
This problem is related to the fact-value distinction that is raised in the article (not to mention the fact-value-truth distinction).
So what do you mean then, by saying it is amoral? It sounds as if science is a Mr. or Mrs. who is exempt.