They were able to do a lot of beneficial research because they didn’t have to deal with cumbersome regulations and roadblocks.

And if they didn’t do it, someone else would have lined up to take advantage of the opportunities.

Edit: If it isn’t clear, I am being sarcastic.

It depends how you see things. imho some things are intrinsically wrong, doing them because "someone else would have lined up to take advantage of the opportunities" doesn't change the fact that it's wrong in the first place.

Just the same way that if something wrong is done by a lot of people it doesn't make it right (smoking, drinking &c.).

What if the alternative is to be shot yourself? Where do you morals stand then?

Unfortunately our morals are easily swayed when the alternative choice is death.

Coercion undermines agency.

How is that relevant here?

>Science is above this.

Yes, thats probably what Nazi thought too. Above the cost of human life.