I think that it connotes a general meaning as Prof. Equating science ethics with scientific ethics may raise other difficulty in understanding. To me the former would cover areas such as the actual experimentation in scientific study, the principle used in the representation of data and so on. The latter can be used as an methodological term. Those bioethicists whose original background has not been philosophy think differently.
Science has objectivity.
Philosophers recognize ethical objectivism and their deliberations can be value based. And if, as Prof. Kochhar pens science is ethically neutral and is value free then scientists have a problem is making their science value based. It is a great schism between these two schools of thought. In some cases one can take either one of the positions i.e. either accept or reject. TRT5 was a treat with a small group of interested bioethicists.