Passage Summary: While people say science is neutral, it actually has its own rules that allow scientists to ignore potential bad outcomes of their work, unlike regular morality which says you must think about the consequences.

Reasoning: The author contrasts the internal value system of science, which allows ignoring foreseeable harm, with ordinary morality, which requires considering such consequences.

Analysis: Since this is a 'Most Strongly Supported' question, we must find a bridge between the two sets of rules described. The stimulus sets up a direct conflict: science says you don't have to consider harm, while ordinary morality says you must. This strongly suggests that a person could be a 'good scientist' by following scientific tradition while simultaneously being 'immoral' by the standards of ordinary society. Look for an answer that highlights this potential for conflict between professional scientific standards and general moral duties.