This presentation addresses different considerations about a better and may be a stronger science. The purpose is to improve the scientific integrity with ethical objectives. It follows the history of the relationships between ethics and scientific integrity. Indeed, François Rabelais, a French writer and physician, stated that science without conscience is nothing but the ruin of the soul. Robert Merton demonstrated in 1957 that the culture of science is pathogenic addressing thus the illness of the scientists. Recent advances show why most research results are false or useless. Since, integrity is difficult to reach, ethical choices must be discussed. Thus, a participative reasoning can address the conflicts among a set of ethical and scientific objectives e.g. operational issues versus advanced scientific approaches. That reasoning provides the ethical choices and the corresponding protocols of research e.g. reversibility of the approach with a protocol showing the advantages and the limitations. Since ethics is a matter of choice and scientific integrity is difficult to demonstrate, participative science can help to cope with bad societal orientations, conflicts of interest, pathogenic behaviors and authoritative positions. However, ethics and scientific integrity also can serve political objectives with a poor consideration of social benefits whatever be the approach. Thus, freedom of research and direct democracy remain major protections of true and good science.