Science is not about morality or moral judgements. There is not, and need not be, any 'scientific' reason not to kill, steal or hurt someone. Morality originates from a separate domain of existence. Apart from the very basic moral principles of not killing or harming, many of the finer points of morality used to be defined the domain that was described, in a general sense, by religious culture, or myths of the Origin, and so on. Western moral codes were ultimately anchored in the Bible, but also in 'the Classics' and in various historical forms of civil law and the like; the totality of The Tradition.
It is questionable whether there is such a domain any more, or certainly whether it means anything any longer. It is being dissolved in the acid of post-modernism, where moral judgement is a matter of individual opinion, and relationships are largely contractual. In the absence of truths which a whole culture honours and shares, about the only thing we can agree on any more are mathematical or scientific truths. Which is why, I think, you asked the question.
I note the response
You must focus on key issues
This too is characteristic of the post-modern outlook, is it not? As we no longer have recourse to the idea of truth as something that is 'holy writ', in other words, a non-subjective and non-scientific basis for morality, then we can only make judgements procedurally, that is, with regards to this or that question or issue. There is no 'moral law' as such, only the morality of this or that action. Not saying this is incorrect, but it also reflects the general attitude of science towards 'truth', that there is no 'truth as such', only the truth of this or that hypothesis. So truth too has mainly an instrumental value, not something that one can aspire towards, personally.
(I guess I sound very nostalgic saying all this. I can see myself weeping into my brandy at a Gentleman's Club and mumbling 'Tradition'! Still, I don't think it hurts to consider this perspective.)