To add a further question (or throw oil on the fire

) - do people see science as a subject or a method of investigation?
I'm not sure I quite see it as either. I guess I see pure science as more a refining of models of reality[1], though that refining may indeed involve showing that a particular model is not valid for anything thing other than the most granular viewpoint.
As flat earth has been mentioned as a theory here I'll take that as an example. For many things a flat earth model is enough a lot of the time as a working model of reality, crossing the road, rolling a ball etc, whereas if you want acurate flight navigation over long distances it no longer is.
A roundish earth with gravitation is a better model for accuracy but it has to be said cumbersome for crossing the road, until you've appreaciated the scale that your working with, which allows you not worry about the round bit until you get to the other side and can carry on planning your navigation points and journey times for your round the world yatch race.
As such I guess I see it as amoral almost by definition and the application of those models is where any moral of ethical concerns are to be applied. That does extend to the moral and ethical consequences and collateral of any experiments that a scientist should use to refine their models.
Though it has to be said that many times it's almost imposible to know just how someone in future would use it. eg I doubt the person who invented the engine envisenged it being used in tanks, whereas the man who invented the gun must have had a good idea that it could be used equaly on humans and animals
Putting it another way Scinece strives explain why boiling your water makes it safe to drink, it doesn't actually do it and you don't actually need to know or believe it.
A religious belief that the dieties of the fire kill the bad deities in the water could also do the same thing.
One, seems to me, a better more refined model than the other.
I guess there are ethical and moral questions to destroying the bactera that may be present though
Relating this back to my previous posts, please note I've only said gravitaional influence on water in the human body is not a good model to explain any luna influence directly on human behaviour during the full moon.
A question.
Is a full moon always closer to the earth than a waxing or waning one ever is?
[1] Yeah I know it's a biggy, very vague and open to all sorts of interpretations, the nearest I can find without taking up several pages is "what actually happens"