It is the general consensus that both bioethics and science are not only important but also necessary for the development of the human race and the preservation of other earthly species. Whereas bioethics analyses the value of life from a subjective point of view, science consists mostly of exploring it objectively, constantly researching for new alternatives. The main question here is whether bioethics restricts science to a dangerous point or if science might somehow reach catastrophic consequences for mankind without the existence of bioethics.
It is true that, in many cases, the advances in science have only become visible because of its technical approach; however, bioethics has gone and posed serious questions in regards to the moral and legal approach of scientific methods. The work of bioethics does not simply consist on tying the hands of science; it is far more complex than that when it comes to analysing the outcome of a certain practice.
For example, even if not everyone agrees with it, bioethics accepts medical experimentation on animals as long as it provides scientists with cures or treatments to illnesses that affect the human population. Another well-known example was presented during the initial stages of cloning in the 1990s, when the question of playing God came into place: as many people considered the idea of cloning humans was viable, bioethicists explained why it was not.
Other important topics which are worth mentioning are abortion, euthanasia, surrogacy and organ donation, among others. Different moral values might get into place as these issues are on the table, and they often are religious or sociocultural in nature, thus making those topics grey areas not only for bioethicists but also for analysts in other fields. Nevertheless, before handling such subjects to science, bioethics can filter the information and demand for support of individual choices and, depending on the case, laws and regulations that may apply to it.