Thus far, we have examined the relationship between scientific ideology and the neglect of major ethical dimensions of science, largely caused by the component of scientific ideology that declares science to be “value free” and “ethics free.” But while the explicit denial of values is certainly going to be the most obvious cause of ethical neglect, we cannot underestimate the more subtly corruptive influence of the second component of scientific ideology we have delineated, the denial of the reality or knowability of subjective experiences in people and animals.

Obviously, concern about how a person or animal feels – painful, fearful, threatened, stressed – looms large in the context of ethical deliberation. If such feelings and experiences are treated as scientifically unreal, or at least as scientifically unknowable, that will serve to eliminate what we may term a major call to ethical deliberation and ethical thought. Insofar as modern science tends to bracket subjectivity as outside its purview, the tendency to ignore ethics is potentiated. For example, in our discussion of animal research we have alluded to the absence of pain control in animal research until it was mandated by federal legislation.

While this is certainly a function of science's failure to recognize ethical questions in science, society in general, except for issues of overt cruelty, also historically neglected ethical questions about animals.