I like the concept, especially the more morally neutral take you have in mind. The corporation not being good or evil allows you to ride some gray areas, leaving it up to the reader to judge what's really right or wrong. It'd be important to write it as unbiased as possible, to make sure you don't lean people one way or another towards what you (as the writer) may naturally prefer.
The concept may work better within one larger game though, but that would heavily depend on your inspiration to write, since larger games take a lot of time. Having different experiments, which readers can interact with in different ways, can have impact on future experiments. It's harder to do this by splitting it up into multiple games, though it has been done before.
Random example of the advantage to a more combined game: say you're studying somebody who has a very rare illness. Odds are you wont find another like them. Dissecting their diseased body will gain you valuable information, while letting them live (whether it's giving them a cure, or it's simply a non-fatal illness), and go off would create for much less short-term study material.
This could branch in two ways: the person, still alive, may come back to help in some way much later in the story. Or the person, now dissected, will give information that will impact the next immediate experiment in a positive way. You can't have it both ways in a single playthrough, and you could write it in a way where both ways feel like justified decisions, which make for different results.
