Biological, medical, and other scientists have a much greater interest in ethics than they once did. Many scientists speak of importance of conducting science in an ethical way and for ethical purposes. They commonly proclaim that science should not advance unfettered by moral constraints and without ethical evaluation. Accordingly, scientific journals and books are increasingly interested in including articles providing ethical analysis of scientific matters. All things considered, this development is welcome, not only because attention to ethical issues is important, but also because trend feeds itself--it causes more and more people to become interested in and give attention to ethical issues. The problem with trends is that they are often not very reflective. They are not created by vast numbers of independently minded people coincidentally having same idea. Instead, they emerge as increasing numbers of people emulate others. When trend is greater attention to ethics, danger is that interest will not always be genuine. In other words, when all those around one are professing importance of ethics, there is (often unconscious) pressure on one to offer similar professions, whether one has a deep commitment to idea or not. As a result many people will pay mere lip service to ethics, often without realizing that they are not actually behaving any differently. It is not surprising that many scientists (like many nonscientists) lack a deep commitment to ethical evaluation of their work. Because current orthodoxies about what is ethical in science are probably not all correct, a thoroughgoing ethical evaluation of scientific practice would at least sometimes be critical--and sometimes extremely critical. Naturally, scientists involved in widely accepted but ethically problematic practices would be deeply threatened. Their options would be (a) to abandon problematic practices, (b) to abandon ethics, or (c) to select an alternative ethical evaluation that endorses practices. The first choice would threaten their livelihood or professional development; second, their sense of themselves as scientists of integrity. The upshot is that third option is psychologically easiest, especially given human capacity for self-deception. The problem, however, is that selective ethics is bad ethics for just same reasons that selective science is bad science. In ethics, as in science, evidence must precede conclusion. In other words, those interested in truth, whether scientific or ethical, cannot first accept a view and then selectively muster evidence in support of it. An open mind is a requirement not only for good science but also for good ethics. Although one might approach a question with a hypothesis in mind, to assume truth of that hypothesis is to put epistemic cart before evidentiary horse. Instead, one must consider evidence--whether empirical, conceptual, or logical--with an open mind and follow wherever it leads. Precisely because selective ethics is bad ethics, those engaging in it are psychologically impelled to avoid appearing to themselves and others as being selective in their ethics. To preserve their image of themselves and others' image of them as committed to honest ethical evaluation, their selectivity must be coupled with appearance of impartial responsiveness to evidence and arguments. In other words, selectivity in ethics is well camouflaged. There is thus something instructive about indicating its presence when one catches sight of it. Just because it is not usually seen does not mean that it is not there. To this end, I turn now to a particularly brazen case from my own experience. I was approached to write a chapter on Ethical Considerations in Use of a Primate Model in Biomedical Research for a volume in a series of handbooks for those experimenting on animals. The editor of volume explained that book was intended for biomedical researchers and that she wanted a chapter discussing the philosophical aspects of using a primate in such research. …