[Liberty Wins]

"Science by its very nature is amoral."

"Amoral" in this sense refers to value-free situations, making it a synonym of "nonmoral" (neither moral nor immoral).

For example, physics would be an amoral discipline, neither moral nor immoral in itself. However, isn't there an ethical code attached to the practice of each discipline? And when this ethical code is breached, isn't the science therein in danger of becoming "perverted" science?

[cornelis]

I understand the safe verson of using "amoral." But there's a lot of mileage got from that. Recently Lynne Cheney pressed Wolf Blitzer on the terrorist tapes CNN has showed. His response? Just the facts, ma'am. "This is reporting the news. Which is what we do, we are not partisan."

Some of us are wisening up here. The facts are a liars best defense. Not to get up in a snit, but why point out the amorality of science? Is it an excuse? To me it sounds like license.

[RightWhale]

It would be better, thinking of contemporary usage, to say non-moral rather than amoral in this case. Amoral has other baggage, while non-moral is baggage-free.

[MainFrame65]

" == However, isn't there an ethical code attached to the practice of each discipline? And when this ethical code is breached, isn't the science therein in danger of becoming "perverted" science? == "

Yes, and we have a very topical example of the perversion in the form of the professional "bioethicist." I believe that the more accurate rendering of the vast majority of these people is more like "bio-DEATH-ASSIST," because they all seem to me to be an incredibly bloodthirsty lot, both at the beginning and the end of life.