I think this amounts to a difficulty of difference. To differentiate between tool and usage, to differentiate between liability and responsibility, to differentiate between technology and science. One can't group 'em all together and point at that as a reason for anything.
Combined they make a dynamic relationship, not an integrated part. That's the difference.
Moralists are very aware of the different factors that affect a moral issue - they don't plot 'em all together to make some contingent argument.
They differentiate between the deliberate actions by a person or a group of people and any third party; better known as responsebility wrought through conscious (sane) actions.
Science isn't a parent (authoritative institution), nor does it have any moral dimension; it's a (in derogatory perspective) tool, plain 'n' simple.
Science isn't a direct part of society, per se. Scientists are, and have the same moral dimension as anyone part of the society, we are humans after all.
If it is anyone who should be "society's daddy" then it should the court houses, the police, the schools, the childcare centers - and most importantly, the parents (who have learned their responsibility for the upbringing of children in a modern society).
One would think that once grown up, people would be independent responsible individuals. I understand why people take comfort and feel secure, when some authority directs their behavior. In my view, that's intellectual laziness. To relinquish any sense of responsibility and accountability (for ones actions) up to an authority is what creates zombie followers, in my opinion.
I think that such adults should learn how to be independent. That was the case after the Iron Curtain fell; now suddenly, the former Communist citizens should learn to act independently, without a state governing their behavior (just a requirement to act within the frame of the law, of course).