The article is an exploration into the problem of the ethos of modern science viewed from the representationalist and interventionist perspectives. The representationalist account of science is associated with the position of theoreticism, while the interventionist account pertains to the concept of new experimentalism. The former of these approaches is dominated by the ethos of science which Robert K. Merton defined as comprising four sets of institutional imperatives referred to as ‘Mertonian norms’: universalism, communitarism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. In the (...) latter approach, the concept of ethos is far more intricate. It can be described as a hybrid mix of elements derived from Mertonian norms and some constituents from the area of science that John Ziman calls “industrial science”. This article compares the two types of ethos, highlighting the need to identify and investigate nuances in the ethos embraced by individual disciplines within the area of the interventionist approach to science. It is argued that the need can be attributed to the escalating process of substituting the ideal of value-free science for the ideal of value-laden science. The phenomenon is especially evident in the field of laboratory sciences, as exemplified by the research conducted on synthetic mRNA technology. The author also draws attention to the problem of the social responsibility of disciplines from the interventionist approach to science. (shrink)