Neither. It’s a description not a prescription. There’s no rigorously defined good or bad in science. You will sometimes see comments in the conclusion of paper that relates to the impacts of the results in the paper, including conjectures and even jugements, to inform further research. Some fields do this more than other. For example, there is a tendency during this pandemic, in papers related in any ways to the vaccines, to explicitly emphasize when a result supported the benefits of vaccination as a public policy. I think we can understand why. There are research that explicitly try to detect the effects of the vaccine. Even in this case, the science in the paper doesn’t assume anything about the ethics of death and sickness, it tells you what it’s sees where they told it to look. However, often the authors’ choice of words will betray their own ethics, which goes unnoticed most of the time because otherwise the language would be way too dry.

Scientists will use scientific papers for the actual results in them, observations they can’t afford to do themselves, but need to trust and understand. They skip over the non scientific part of text not by self-discipline, but by necessity. In contrast, science communicators and journalists rely on the conclusion section of the papers, especially the parts that help them connecting the dots. I think that this has given the public a distorted understanding of the function of the information being exchange in the scientific literature.

You shouldn’t read the research thinking about the vaccine in society. You should read it thinking about the specific and exact subjects, effects, associations, etc. involved in the paper.