Much of our early genetic research came from NAZI experiments also. Thousands of twins, people with genetic defects, and “peculiarities” died in NAZI Death Camps as they were studied to death. In this case we applied morality to future research on the subject. Now that we can connect genes like “tinker toys” (oversimplification), will science have to moral imperative to benefit humanity, or serve other ends?
The USSR had a major accident involving the release of Anthrax. Hundreds died at a minimum. How many were studied with the goal not of curing them, but of perfecting the weapon?
This makes me wonder about all of these “new” diseases appearing out of China. Maybe their scientists, unbound by morality, have already made synthetic organisms.
As for nuclear weapons (which the US, Japan, and Germany were all working on), these weapons were known to be very destructive only after testing. The morality came in two forms: (1)We need to stop the war or we will have to invade Japan with extreme casualties. (2)We need to find something better for this technology to do.
Inasmuch as you acknowledge the inability to predict where research will lead, how does one determine when to put the clamp of morality on science?
I think one of the most dangerous experiments ever done was Jenner’s injection of people with cowpox to see if smallpox immunity could be achieved. Yet without it, imagine the deaths...