As an "advisory," their suggestions are just that, “suggestions.” The decision remains with the scientist, not the ethicist.

Then again, should the scientist go the other way, the ethicist now has the moral duty to blow his/her moral whistle, no matter how minor the issue may be. It might be best to simply use one’s own judgment.

Of course the ethicist might still be required, depending upon the load of the issue, for instance where one person or committee might be forced to decide the health-sickness, life-death, freedom-prison fate of another person.

Slippery slopes all 'round.