That's not what I meant. Allow me to expand on that:
Scientific research is morally neutral. It is the best system we have to determine truth and can never be immoral in and of itself. But it often takes time for the public to accept scientific consensus and during that transitional period there may be tensions, especially if the scientific data counters strong personal beliefs. The initial reaction to Darwin's observation of evolution was negative as the adaptation of species is not something readily observable, and the idea that humans and apes have a common ancestor is malediction to those who see human beings as special or the creations of a god. But we must always aspire to seek truth even while it may be controversial.
Should try to be morally neutral. Humans are involved, after all.
Yes, there can be tensions, but say that Darwin faced great opposition is a popular misconception. Keep in mind that the Victorian Age was really one of discovery (Lyell, Wallace, Cavendish, etc.) and to be scientifically interested in the world around you was seen as something that every Victorian gentleman should strive to do. So houses had microscopes, and trips to the seashore to see the fossils in shale were actively encouraged.
As for Darwin, he was 'pushed' in publishing his book because he feared he'd get trumped by Wallace. A religious man, I think his last book (I think) was considerably less controversial -earthworms.