This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest what scientists should or should not be held responsible for. The stimulus is limited to the contrast between two value systems, but doesn't choose one over the other, or assign responsibility in any other way.

This answer is unsupported. We only know that ordinary morality requires taking foreseeable consequences into account. If an action has unforeseen harmful consequences, or if someone considers the foreseeable consequences but goes ahead anyway, we don't know what ordinary morality would say.

This answer is unsupported. The stimulus strongly implies that science is not, in fact, morally neutral. Besides, we don't know whether or not science's value system assigns value to the consequences of theoretical research, just that foreseeable consequences needn't affect the decision of whether to conduct research.

This answer is strongly supported. Scientists’ traditional value system does not require taking into account foreseeable consequences, while ordinary morality does.

This answer is unsupported. It’s entirely possible that these effects can be adequately foreseen, it’s just that the traditional value system for science does not require scientists to take these effects into account.