I'm hungry and I don't feel like cooking.

Science just doesn't address the moral questions. On the genital mutilation, science may answer the question "what are the effects" but it doesn't tell us whether healthy and happy women are more important than men who don't have to worry about their wives cheating because they enjoy sex. What if science found that FGM actually does prevent infidelity? Would that make it right? Our moral opposition to FGM comes from somewhere more human, not from the scientific understanding that it is bad for a girl's health.

Science can tell us whether an action is likely to have a desired result, it can't tell us whether we are right to desire that result.

The article shows an assumption that making the well-being of conscious creatures the desired result is somehow scientific. Science does not make that claim. It can't. It isn't a testable claim.

Science-loving people tend to have a more open-minded world-view than many religious people, particularly people who reject science on religious grounds. This usually leads to a set of moral positions that I (and the author, apparently) find attractive. But their morality and their love of science come from the same open-mindedness, the morality does not come from science.

Science informed the designers of my stove, and informs me as to the metabolic consequences of my breakfast choices. Science informs me about the probable results of some actions. But it won't cook my breakfast or tell me what results are right or wrong.