Decisions about the use of science are "existential" to the extent that they concern human well-being, that is, how people think, develop, act -- how they live. Scientists working within their own disciplines tend to depend on paradigms and these usually entail mandatory sets of rigid norms. These permit serious and deep pursuit of knowledge but by themselves don't respond to, let alone overcome, gaps that open between scientific research itself and demands or needs for public determination of the social applications of research. Researchers must often cope with heavy time pressures for the financing and the publication of their work. This tends to minimize interdisciplinary efforts and confirm the priorities of decision-makers who provide financing. The matter is complicated by increasing demands from the public that scientists factor into their efforts important ethical questions concerning social, economic and political matters. This makes the requisite tools interdisciplinary and there is a general absence of agreed-on rules for their development and use. Recent fascination with nanotechnologies as keys to scientific progress suggests the possibility of crafting appropriate priorities that are not always dependent on calculations of profit. A variety of risks -- ethical, health, environmental -- arise at the beginning of a project and they bring complexity and interdependence throughout the effort. Again: these entail social and not solely scientific issues and they cannot be glossed over. This paper aims to press scientists to consider and reflect on the possible future uses of their accomplishments (in terms of ethics and risks or hazards for Humans and the environment). It proposes certain humbleness on their part together with a principle of "Socially Responsible Research" when, for example, applying new nano-drugs in cancer therapy (including limits of perception of possible problems of researchers and few modest action proposals for a social progress).