Science is entirely based on descriptive statements (as opposed to prescriptive/normative ones); it deals exclusively with how the world is, not with how it shall be, or how one should act; and since prescriptive/normative statements cannot be derived by descriptive ones, science by itself, can never give ethical advice nor make statements like "You shall do X." or "You shall not do Y."; at best, it can only make statements in the form of: "If you do X, X' will happen", "If you do Y, Y' will happen instead.".
However, precisely because it does not deal with ethical issues, science can also never deny the value of ethical statements, nor deny the existence or value of ethics itself.
In other words, the relationship between science and ethics is that of a "work division" of sorts where ethics determines *what* shall be done (i.e.: the ends), science determines *how* to do it (i.e.: the means).
State Pseudoscience, on the other hand, has an ambivalent relationship with ethics: at times it tries to deny the very existence or value of ethics, however at the same time it also tries to enforce very strong prescriptive (therefore ethical) norms, but masks them by just calling them "scientific". In other words, State Pseudoscience attempts to act as a substitute for ethics.
This is especially manifest when it comes to the issue of civil rights: opposition to determined practices are rejected on the basis of being "political" and therefore "not scientific", however, at the same time, the political promotion or enforcement of those practices is justified on the basis of being "science-based".