Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, science also gave us Josef Mengele. He was done with puny religious and moral concerns too.
Science didn't give us Mengele. If at all, Mengele gave us science [1], although of course that science is tainted with the blood and pain of his subjects. [1] The fine print: I don't know if there are actual preserved recordings from his research that bore any scientific value.
Sure, but that's either during to his clumsiness in experiments, or because of our refusal to accept such horrendous material for further use (even if they are scientifically valid otherwise).
That is, not due to some inherent logical or methodological impossibility of combining science with cruelty. If anything, not caring about the consequences (to people, animals, the environment, etc) can even accelerate scientific study.
That's why I brought it as an example.
To main it the point that we need to draw some lines through external normative systems (religion, morals, ethical concerns etc), because science itself is just a method of inquiry, nothing inherent in it about being humane or responsible.