system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Use of unethical research is not in itself unethical

Let us assume that someone - let's call them Dr A - conducts unethical but otherwise sound research that provides useful information or insight into a problem, say a disease. If someone else - let's call them Dr B - uses said information in their research on the disease, moving forward understanding and contributing towards a cure/treatment. Dr B conducts his research with all appropriate ethical concerns excluding the ethical concern about Dr A's research methods.

There seems to be an idea that in using Dr A's research, Dr B has somehow committed a moral wrong. This is explored in a wide range of media - Star Trek TNG and Voyager are both good examples - but while they establish why the initial research was unethical, none have done an especially good job of showing why \*using\* such research is morally questionable.

Obviously, all research should be conducted as ethically as possible, and unethical behaviour should be punished appropriately, up to and including criminal prosecution for especially egregious or inhumane behaviour. I'm even open to the idea of researchers being fired for major ethical violations, with the details of the case made public so future research institutes can see and make it harder for such researchers to be hired (assuming some fair standards are implemented). However, once that is done, why should the research itself be judged by any other standard?

The only real arguments I've been able to find that support this position are:

1. Using such research is itself a validation or support for the methods used to gain such research. This I think is a weak argument - if Dr A is criminally prosecuted and punished, and Dr C sees this, he's going to be pretty leery of replicating Dr A's methods, since he presumably doesn't want to go to prison. And to Dr A, I wouldn't imagine someone using his work is much comfort.
2. That since Dr B - and by extension, those who his work helps - benefits from Dr A's research, they are somehow culpable in Dr A's choices. This is very weak as well in my view, since Dr B, much less the other people, usually had no way to interfere with Dr A's choices, so they are apparently morally guilty by something they had no role whatsoever in or control over. It also raises the question of how far removed do they need to be. If Dr A does unethical research, which informs Dr B's research, which helps people, are the people "contaminated" by Dr A's unethical behaviour? What if there are more researchers in the chain? 

I really can't see any arguments in favour of the idea of using the research being unethical. So I turn to you guys to help me fill in my blind spots. Thanks in advance!
gpt
For scientific theory to be robust, experiments which confirm the theory need to able to be replicated. It's the cornerstone of peer review, and prevents scientists from fudging their results.

An unethical scientist comfortable with torturing a particular subset of the population, could just as easily make up results to indicate that the subset is biologically inferior.

No-one would repeat the study because torture is unethical, and if you allowed scientists to use the study, then suddenly everyone thinks the subset is inferior forever, with no way to disprove it.