As to biology you might want to look into Robert Lanza's work, he is a biologist and is also into theoretical physics. Therefore you might want to check out his take on the biology side of things.
I can't vouch for him being the bearer of truth but he comes off as seemingly reasonable.
He tends to give talks at Buddhist assemblies and therefore i mention him.
Section 1: Morality
How is it possible that those who achieve Nibbana are morally infallible?
I will start by defining Nibbana here according to the teacher's message;
Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion.’ Of what now, venerable sir, is this the designation?”
“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.” https://suttacentral.net/sn45.7/en/bodhi
Without getting into details and particulars of how the destruction & removal of taints comes about, one can here see that the claim is that the attainment of that however it comes about completely removes delusion and this in & by itself would make such intellect purified & infallible as it would be without any delusion.
Ie if we don't know the goal of life then we are ignorant of it.
However we can know that in order to realize the goal we must first know what the goal is, if we know the goal we can aim to achieve it.
Therefore the intermidiate goal to becoming morally infallable is the development of understanding as to see the goal and knowing how to realize the ultimate purpose.
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see. - Arthur Schopenhauer
One who sees the goal can be expected to hit it, not one who is otherwise.
Moral fallibility implies ignorance as being wrong on account of delusion.
One who has attained the removal of delusion in the ultimate sense is made infallible in that regard.
How is it that certain mind-states are objectively unskillful (evil) or skillful (good); wouldn't that be subjective to say?
If the intermidiate goal of life is becoming such genius who can see the ultimate goal of life. Then it follows that one can give attention to what is connected with the goal of becoming such; and one can give attention to what isn't connected with the goal of becoming such and is rather connected with becoming otherwise.
What one gives attention that one perceives, what one perceives that one thinks about and it is based on what one thinks about that one is assailed by various mindstates which become the inclination of the mind due to a frequent giving of attention.
Therefore one here can categorically classify the mindstates which are associated with development leading to seeing & realizing the goal of life as states that are good; and one classifies the states that are not conducive to that development as detrimental or bad.
From here one infers the appropriate & inappropriate giving of attention.
The teacher has proclaimed that understanding is to be developed for removal of delusion & attainment of the ultimate goal.
It is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
People generally disagree about how the word consciousness is to be understood & ought to be thought about; but they do agree that the understanding of it is to be developed and that great minds think alike.