I am sorry, but to me it comes across like you are pushing a false dichotomy.

Specifically it seems you insist I either:

1. nod along and say "yes" to your own language about what this moral obligation is including elastic concepts like "normative obligation" which I suspect you will eventually let me know the meaning of after I pre-agree to it.
2. Reject that there is any moral obligation of honesty in science, other than of course the one that you wish to keep control of defining.