One question raised a few times here is about scientific neutrality - the idea that the scientist carrying out the work is neutral and that all the responsibility lies with the person who chooses to utilise that research to make a bomb, for instance. Some have argued for that, others that the scientist is even more responsible than the bomb-maker. This is relevant because it also feeds into the question Dave raised about which scientists incite others to kill, maim and torture. 'Incite' normally describes a particular activity and in that conventional sense it is hard to think of an academic paper 'inciting' anyone. But there are other words that might fit better, like 'encouraging' or 'persuading', and a paper could do that. So I'd be unwilling to let science off the metaphorical hook because of a single word.

In the early 60s I was a member of the British Association of Young Scientists. Mainly this group organised professional scientists and university science lecturers to visit schools around 6 times a year to give lectures after the school day. As part of that, in 1966 I attended a week's conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science to listen to a series of lectures. Here's a clipping from their web site:

       The British Association for the Advancement of Science first met in 1831. It aimed to confront and rectify what many saw as the 'decline of science in England.'
      This decline was attributed to numerous factors,  including the enduring hegemony of the Royal Society, the marginalisation of regional Societies, 
      and the unprofessional status of scientific practitioners in Britain. 
  
      The British Association aimed to nurture a national, and even international, network of scientists, and it accordingly held each annual meeting
      in a different regional centre in the British Isles.
  

There was a pressure group, who I think were called Society for the Social Responsibility of Scientists [it was a long time ago!], and this group demonstrated throughout the week to point out to the scientists the consequences of their research. Some certainly went into areas that were really impossible to assess morally - I particularly remember their objections to infra red cameras because of the military uses, but they discounted their use in say, search-and-rescue.

So even the tender age of 13 I felt they were pretty naïve and simplistic, but despite that I did think their fundamental point was right: no-one, including a scientist, can wholly absolve themselves of [foreseeable] consequences of their actions, and the way out is not to avoid trying to foresee anything. And it did perhaps get rid of any lingering divisions I had in my mind between a wholly pure world of science and a wholly evil 'them', whether that refers to religion, or business, or the military or ....

[Yes, Steve: at 13 I was attending pretty advanced science lectures aimed at people perhaps 25+, and also undergoing 'religious indoctrination'. I wonder how you would classify me? Hopelessly confused, perhaps? *smile*)