# data[].attributes.body
Science have a great control over science, but not only that societies are essentially what birth science's norm of ethics. The society is a collectivisation of ideas from a group of people in a general means of understanding, not only with the scientists' conclusion but any laymen, thus being more relatable and garnering more acceptance and attention.

# data[].attributes.body
It is possible to argue between the scientists and the society. However, the population and the society should have a greater influence on what is ethically acceptable in the field of natural science. The idea of what is morally correct differentiates between individuals. Therefore, the population and the society should exerts a greater influence than scientists. A scientist should not classify what is correct and what is not. The society and the population puts limit and pressure on the boundary of the science, ensuring the science guide the society to the best possible outcome. Science consists of knowledge beyond the understanding of humankind at this moment of time, the society and the population of the globe should exert a force that is capable of control and determine what is ethically acceptable to prevent devastating effect brought by the science. To conclude, the society should exerts a greater force as the population union together and come to consensus on the ethical acceptance.

# data[].attributes.body
The society itself has a larger impact on what is ethically acceptable because the environment one lives provides a massive impact on the thoughts and norms that are deemed acceptable and accurate. Although scientists may have the knowledge and information about a specific category of natural sciences, the society they subside in will manipulate knowledge and information based on what they are socially accustomed to.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that scientists have a greater influence on what might be ethically acceptable as they might have the trust of people.Yet, scientists also tend to take this trust for granted therefore causing them to also push these ethical boundaries. I also still think that society has a great influence on people and what they might find socially acceptable and that most of the population would rather be influenced by society than scientists.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that scientists would overall have a greater influence on what is ethically acceptable simply because they have more knowledge in that field about what would be considered dangerous/threatening/harmful. However, there are several scientists who may overstep their boundaries without realising so, like the man who conducted the Prison experiment. He didn't realise/see the ethical unacceptability of the Prison experiment until someone else pointed it out. But we do have things like the Precautionary Principle to set these boundaries. However, i think that the general public, especially those who will be most influenced by the scientists experiments, should have some influence as they are affected the most.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that scientists would be more benefited and have a greater influence on what is ethically acceptable in this area of knowledge because they might have more experience in that area of work/field and also have more knowledge about the safety considerations, dangerous and unethical choices. They also have more control and power over their discoveries and experiments allowing for more valid results. There is more validation and affirmation that the scientist is professional and is gathering data the best way possible, however the society might have some power in the way that they are the ones who choose to believe if this data or results are valid or not as if society itself denies its validity, then it has basically no use.

# data[].attributes.body
I definitely think that that the societies in which scientist work in have a far greater influence on what is ethically acceptable. Scientists are the ones who seek new information and tries to make experiments to discover new science. If scientists were to decide the ethical rules themselves, they are likely to "bend" and "tweek" the ethical rules so that they can conduct the experiment they want to. Scientists work night and day to find ground breaking information. To do so, they may need to do things nobody ever has done before. Consequently, tweeking the ethical rules is an easy way to be able to access new findings as these findings have not been able to be found before the method got ethically accepted.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that scientist exert a strong influence on what is ethically acceptable in this area of knowledge. I think the reason for this is because scientists exert greater amounts of power and resources to actually develop and broaden our knowledge. On the other hand, even though scientists do have a strong expertise in one particular field but the people in society also have a strong say on what is ethically acceptable in an area of knowledge. As society members, we also know right from wrong where we might see things that aren't ethical that scientists do not. I believe that just leaving scientists to decide what is morally acceptable or unacceptable is not fair because the ethics of science is often based on the society's culture.

# data[].attributes.body
I thunk that the society has more influence on the outcome than the scientists because scientists focus on research and discovering new ideas, while the society uses these ideas in order to fulfil its needs. Any discovery or invention that is made can be used for various purposes, but the aims of society is what determines how they will be used.
IN addition, once a piece of information is available to the society, it is no longer the responsibility of the scientist. There are many more people of various professions than scientists, and these people will be the ones who use the tools given by the scientist.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe what society and the scientific community deems appropriate defines the boundaries in which scientists are allowed to explore. As new research and ethics are developed our boundaries as to how far we are able to go will change. While the scientist themself have the final say in what their paper will be about, it still needs approval from peers and from other authorial figures, all of whom are affected by society and their values shaped by the society around them. In cases where the scientist themself have the final say in the experiment, it depends on their morals, of which is affected by their culture, religion and environment which may not necessarily be mainstream in society and may face disapproval. In this case the knowledge found will face harsh criticism and be ignored

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, it could be argued that both have a great impact on what is ethically acceptable. Scientist have the capability of "creating science". They themlsves research and find new chemical compounds aswell as cures therefore only they are aware of the negative/positive impacts that any innovations might have on the society. The society works upon the new and advance research. Although, on the other hand, the scientist work for the community and society, they work for rich people/companies that are able to fund their investigations therefor the top of the hierarchy is responsible for being ethical with the information that has been developed.

# data[].attributes.body
During this day and age, scientists still remains prominent  on exerting a greater influence on what is ethically acceptable in the area of knowledge. There's also a rise in influence from the societies rather than the scientists with social medias allowing people to share the news and info all over the world, also with the higher morality people have these days. Scientists in my opinion should have more influence on what is ethically acceptable as they have more experiences with studies/researches that covers borderline unethical things, which give them a better sense than the general public in whats ethically acceptable. For example the general public wouldn't know that how some animals wouldn't feel pain, while most of the scientists do. TLDR; Scientists have more experience and knowledge in these sort of fields than the general public, so they should have more influence in what are ethically acceptable

# data[].attributes.body
I think that society plays a bigger role as it tends focus on the social aspect of what is right or wrong. With the pressures of society, scientists may typically be forced to abide by the social niceties in order to be supported (in terms of funding/the need for their input in the science industry). However, scientists may pressure other scientists as they have power/rank above them or may be highly regarded as they understand the field more than the rest of society and would abide by the ethics found.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the scientists has a larger impact on the ethical decisions being made within the community as they are highly knowledgable about their actions and the impact of their subjects. Although society does help guide them to the direction that the general public thinks it is deemed appropriate and thus they do influence ethical rules in place. But of course I think that the laws set in place are created through a group of scientists coming together to discuss and exchange ideas and thoughts on what should and should not be allowed.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the societies in which the scientists operate in take bigger precedent in role of what is morally acceptable. This is because the values that brought up in household of children who do become scientists. this gives can influence how they operate when performing in experiments.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion I believe that scientist exert a greater influence on what is ethically acceptable in natural science due to the reason that they have more experience in the field in which they operate in. They should have more knowledge on what is ethical or not. However, on the other hand in the case of Henrietta Lacks, the scientists retrieved her cells without her consent which is considered to be unethical. Therefore, I believe that in some cases societies will play a bigger role in deciding what is ethically acceptable.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the scientists themselves exert a greater influence on what is ethically correct in natural science as they are able to use their expertise to persuade the societies in which they operate. Due to a scientist's high level of education and specialisation in a specific scientific field, they are viewed as credible sources, thus allowing them yield a stronger influence on what is ethically acceptable. I also think that through the influence of scientists, society accepts what is ethically acceptable.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that both scientists and the societies have power over ethical considerations in this area of knowledge. Scientists decide on what they can do or not on their patients as in the article when they took the cells from the patients without the patient's and the family's consent. However, societies also have some influence on the ethics of the experiments as they are on a larger scale of people than scientists. They can comment under the post and say what they consider ethical or not. They have the power to argue about the scientists morals and decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the time, setting and ideology influence both societies and scientists to an extent. It's a question of bad apples vs bad barrels. During times of war for example (the Manhattan project) allowed for a weapon of destruction to be made in a supposedly democratic society. Scientists were relied on in this way towards a war effort to support their country. They faced pressure from a collective society to support their nation through war. Although they created it for the purpose of warfare, they (scientists) aren't directly responsible for deaths, they are really overshadowed by their society in terms of ethical usage.

# data[].attributes.body
I do think that both of them have influence other the ethics of the area of study. However, the societies have a far greater chose in what is ethical or what isn't. An example of this would be the Milgram's study, where the scientist carried out a study where most of society deems inappropriate as it breaks our rules of ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that scientists should be granted the ethical responsibility to make sure their work does not harm others as they themselves are well versed in matters regarding humans. However, everyone should also have the ethical responsibility to keep their actions in check, using their own way of thinking. Both scientists and humans should be aware of their actions as it is impossible for scientists to keep everyone in check and vice versa. Everyone should follow their moral compass, and not just believe the other party just because they believe them to superior. Over time, people have created this stereotype that scientists are more worth listening to, and though this may be true in some cases, bias can be at work here. Some scientists are only focused on putting the information, that agrees with their hypothesis, forward.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that although both society and the scientists have an influence on what is considered ethically just. However, the society holds a greater influence, as they are the majority, and they are what the people think and feel. Although the scientist may be able to clear themselves up by explaining what is happening properly, it is ultimately society's decision whether an act is just or not.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the societies play a bigger role than the scientist under this topic.
The ethics of science is often based on the society's culture, it mainly depends on how the society consider the behaviors to be appropriate or not. So even under some situations the scientist are more well educated and knowing better on whether their researches are ethical, they should still respect the general public's thoughts and understanding about scientific ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
Societies where there are scientific knowledge being discovered would need to consider the ethics that comes with it. Much with any scientific research or findings, as it should not harm the people. Safety is prioritised so safety is what should come with science generally.

The scientists are the ones to be responsible for the ethical concerns regarding what they're conducting. But the society in which they operate might be the root of the morals included in precautionary principle and such measures. If the scientists all had their own very unique sets of morals and priorities, the system could be dysfunctional due to some prioritising other values over some. This would make these safety measures nearly pointless because there will always be some scientists who are disregarding of the public's safety or something similar, resulting in morally unacceptable harm.

Safety is indeed important to be prioritised in science as scientific discoveries hold a lot of weight to change the world for the better or worse.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that scientists exert slightly greater influence on what is considered ethically acceptable in natural sciences because they are experts in the field. Although this is not to say that scientists aren't part of society it is just a reflection of their greater extent of knowledge. Society should still hold an integral part in this discussion because after all, they benefit or are harmed by the choices of scientists. Even though scientists have an upper hand in this case due to their experience and knowledge, society can still take their word with a grain of salt.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that it can be argued that both have an influence on the ethics behind scientific research. On the one hand, the scientists conducting the research are trained professionals that should have a sufficient amount of knowledge and understanding of how any research may impact humans, and with this knowledge they could come up with the most appropriate way to avoid any ethical complications while still managing to conduct their research to further benefit human kind. However, on the other hand, I believe that living in a much more informed society nowadays, where people demand understanding of how they might be affected by newfound research, it is quite common that people would object research they might simply not understand. I believe that if there was a way to connect scientists conducting research with the people who might be affected by said research, it would be possible to arrive to conclusions where both sides benefit from the research, and both sides agree that the research is as ethical as possible. However, this is limited by the issues arising with misinformation coming from the people, where the common people who may be effected simply would not understand the research conducted. This could be avoided however, by perhaps simplifying the research or the need for it, so that everyone effected would have the necessary understanding to decide whether or not the research in ethical.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that both the scientists and the societies in which they operate play an important role in judging what is ethically acceptable. However, I believe that the society exert a greater influence because in order for scientific discovery to be accepted, it needs to adhere to the major demographics of society. In addition, scientists are a subset of society hence, the ethical guidelines of the scientists will mirror much of the society. But, society is limited in their knowledge of the studied field, thus allowing them to easily be dissuaded into false or misguided thinking. The influence of a scientist is not insignificant due to their extensive knowledge in the studied field, naturally providing them with sufficient knowledge and context to judge the ethics of their experiment. Therefore, the determination of ethics is a contribution of both the scientists and society.

# data[].attributes.body
Both can have an influence on what can be considered ethically acceptable because they hold some responsibility. The scientist often has control of their inventions and creates the knowledge and main ideas behind it but societies decide how to use them for either good or bad. Scientists should think about and be aware of the ethical guidelines associated with their invention. Societies influence what others think and feel; they have a greater influence over the public than the scientists and can accept the scientific discovery or not.

# data[].attributes.body
i believe that societies would generally accept more recognisable scientists opposed someone that may be new or doesn't know as much about the sciences. People would generally go for something that already has a large following, even if they don't even fully understand something.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes- as they are well educated on the matters of what is best for human kind, some have even majored in the study of human behaviour, so they must know what ethical concerns cultivate or

# data[].attributes.body
I believe both have an important role but scientists have more of an influence because they are doing the research and know what they are talking about while normal people in society don't know much or anything at all about the topic. Society should have a big influence as well especially if it would directly influence society.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that both society and the scientists have an influence on what can be considered ethically acceptable. However, the scientists hold a greater influence on what is ethically acceptable as they have had to study the sciences that they conduct research in. The scientists should, in theory, have a greater knowledge on what is ethically acceptable. However, society should have the final say in what is acceptable. If society does not believe that something is ethically correct then they may not fully trust a certain study.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that societies in which scientists conduct their research often have a larger influence on the acceptability of what is being studied.  Although a scientist would primarily be in control of what is done in a lab and responsible for the data produced, the acceptance and use of this data lies on societies. To sum up, while the majority of control of what is done and though of during a scientific investigation is based on scientist's thoughts and beliefs, something such as ethics would require acceptance from society.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that scientists have a greater influence on what is ethically acceptable in this area. This is because scientists have a background to give them context on what the natural science discovery might entail which can then lead them to deciding if it is ethical to release this type of discovery to the public. This is evident in many dystopian societies in books, governments use censorship to hide concepts that they believe aren't good to show as it would be believed that it is a danger to society. Though scientists have a greater influence on what is ehtical, it does not mean the society has no influence as the society can still deny these concepts and deem them unethical and a danger to society. FInally we can conclude that though scientists have a greater influence and are the pioneers of the decisions whether it is ethical or not, societies also have some say in terms deciding if its ethical.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that societies do exert greater influences on what is ethically acceptable but the scientific community as a whole does possess a certain amount of influence themselves. For example, most scientists are interested in researching a particular phenomenon but in order to conduct their research they require funding either in the form of universities or corporations. Their sources of funding do hold a stake in how quickly research proceeds or the influence it does have on society in terms of who receives the findings of said research. An example of this would be the recent distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. How is it that ALL vaccinations happened to sprout up at the same time? Were all of them REALLY tested and ready? It's likely that vaccine developers were pressured to release vaccines once the first ones started to come out so that the funding of their investors does not go to waste. Thus, society certainly holds ethical standards for scientists. Moreover, groups such as the American Psychological Association (APA) exist and possess ethical guidelines for people in the field of psychology to conduct their research and this serves as another example of how ethical standards have already been set for scientists by society.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that those who hold the greatest influence over what is ethical in this area of knowledge is the scientists. When a scientist is looking to know wether something that are about to do is ethical they are much more likely to consult he other scientists he works with rather than the ask for the public opinion. There is also the situation in which people from society say that an experiment is unethical, if enough scientists are disagreeing with them and giving valid reasons as to why it is ethical then there is a good chance that there peoples outlooks will be changed due to the belief that scientists tend to know what their talking about as they have greater knowledge into the topic then the average person.

# data[].attributes.body
My answer to this question would be the societies as the societies include the people, citizens and the government living in the country. They have the greater power and responsibility to accept what is being brought into the natural science fields. Also, having more people engaged into the decision making process allows more perspectives to come into play from the people that might not have the substantial amount of scientific knowledge as compared to the scientists. This enables us to reach to a deeper conclusion onto whether we should include one of the components of natural sciences and it can help to reduce the amount of bias.