1. NO
1.1. Patents are related to how they are used
1.1.1. Patents on bacteria that are used to create genetically modified food
1.1.1.1. Eg. A protein, "Cry9C" that were approved for animal consumption but not human consumption. There were instances of food allergy caused by human consumption of this protein. Therefore, people argue that patents should only be given to such substances if it is also approved for human consumption as well, in case of accidental contamination like in the previous case.
1.2. There are laws related to how their inventions or discoveries are used
1.2.1. Eg. The discovery of the Embryonic Stem Cell. There are strict regulations that scientists have to adhere to with regards to types and ways of research involving the embryonic stem cell (how the cell is used for scientific research)
2. YES
2.1. They are not given monetary incentives for any ethical consequences.
2.2. Ethics regarding how these inventions and discoveries are used is very subjective and it is very difficult for the scientist to discern right from wrong or to take into account everyone's opinions, therefore ethics regarding how these inventions and discoveries are used should not be the concern of the scientists.
3. YES
3.1. There is a limit to which a scientist has full entity and control to his/her invention.
3.1.1. Eg. Viagra, a drug used to treat erectile dysfunction, is now widely available in countries such as India and Mexico as its patent has expired meaning that it can be manufactured in these countries very cheaply, making it affordable for many and bring about repercussions that stems from the side effects of the Viagra.
3.2. "He who pays the piper calls the tune". More often than not, scientists carry out the instructions of higher authorities such as the government. Hence, how inventions and discoveries are used are then not the concern of scientists as they are funded by others (ie. the government for example)
3.2.1. Eg. Albert Einstein in the invention of the atomic bomb which stems from his Special Theory of Relativity (E=mc2) was funded by the American government under President Roosevelt in the bid to gainthe upper hand in the Second World War.
3.3. Scientists only aim to understand the innate world or solve a problem. The intentions behind their inventions and discoveries are almost never criminal. Therefore, they are not concerned about how they are being used although they may be misused.
4. NO
4.1. It is the scientist that holds the true perfect information of the invention, hence responsibility falls on the scientist(s) to regulate the information they hold as by not doing so, it may lead to serious repercussions.
4.1.1. Eg. The oral contraceptive pill invented in the 1950s is only available through the prescription of doctors/pharmacists. The Pill needs proper regulations in its distribution as the Pill can cause various side effects such as depression and increased chances of cancer.
4.1.2. Eg. The recent creation of artificial life by Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith saw the unprecedented era of synthetic biology. Without proper regulation, repercussions such as the information research being manipulated by dangerous extremist organisations can lead to creation of deadly weapons since even non-living matter can be brought to life now.
4.2. There is a universal code of ethics whereby scientists have to adhere to. (UNESCO's ethical mandate over Science & Technology). Hence, scientists have to ensure that their inventions/discoveries are contained and do not go out of hand, breaching the universal code of ethics.
4.2.1. Eg. The invention of cloning which started out on cloning of animals has been seeing the push for human cloning, which is still highly unacceptable across the globe today and seen as an abuse of genetic technology. Even the cloning of animals itself has seen abnormalities as amplified by the premature death of Dolly the sheep.
4.2.1.1. Note: Clonaid is a human cloning company found in 1997 where its Chief Executive claimed that a clone baby, named Eve, was born. (???)