As utilitarianism is in the spotlight at the moment, it seems like a good time to point out that much of what passes for "scholarship" on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI) of behavioural genetics implicitly takes utilitarianism for granted, even though this is a philosophically controversial ethical framework (that competes with deontological ethics, virtue ethics, etc). This is why they believe they can appoint committees of experts who can decide which research should be allowed based on its "net indirect social costs/benefits" to society on a case by case basis. They honestly believe they can calculate (or intuit!) these costs and benefits, and decide which topics are too "socially harmful" for scientists to investigate and which subjects humanity should be kept in the dark about. This is morally bankrupt, thoroughly illiberal, and a betrayal of the Enlightenment principles on which the modern scientific enterprise was founded.