A good question, although in some ways it's the one that has been asked since logical positivism decided that philosophy could not offer a description of the world, that was science's job, and all of ethics and aesthetics were literally meaningless. And that was in the 1920s, so philosophy could trundle on for a long while yet.
As to what science says about morality, well, we know what it says! It says nihilism, no? And nihilism implies general acquiescence to power, since there’s no basis to criticize murder, rape, slavery, etc, therefore no grounds for objections to what a foolish moralist would call abuse of power. Practical nihilism is what we would call Machiavellianism and essentially devolves to power-worship, which if translated into successful toadying makes it by far the most sensible position (from a suitably cynical viewpoint). If you can’t beat ‘em, and it is more or less stipulated that you can’t, then join ‘em, regardless of what they’re up to. It also allows for guiltlessly switching sides when the power-balance tips, so it shares something in common with the “game theory” view of life that was discussed on a thread at TPB. It hasn’t been explicitly advocated on TPB yet, but it’s the only real option once you’ve concluded everything else is fraudulent (eg Scott’s once professed feminism, which is not worth supporting on his own argument, since there’s no such thing as right/wrong, etc. I assume he’s abandoned it as his position has evolved). Combined with the other implication of BBT (fatalism, according to Scott, which I quite like), it becomes quite an easy sell in an American context, esp American business of course! If they play it right, BBT advocates could enjoy a bright future.