Scientists are certainly not supposed to be “disinterested” about the promotion of their own discoveries or the advancement of knowledge in general. In fact, this interest is often given priority over other, less exalted, concerns, such as the welfare of experimental animals, and even over wider human interests such as the long-term consequences of publishing research that might be used for evil.
The important point is that this “no ethics” principle is not just an obsolete module that can be uninstalled with a keystroke. It is an integral part of a complex cultural form. Merton's norms combine in various ways to motivate and license a wide range of practices and processes. There is no space between them for any other values or virtues than supposedly objective, disinterested truth. Academic scientists have always, of course, brought ethical considerations into their scientific work. But they have had to smuggle them in from private life, from politics, from religion, or from sheer humanitarian sympathy. And even now, many fine scientists instinctively resent the intrusion of this troublesome element into their orderly, committed way of life.
