Separating researcher from knowledge

A portion of knowledge and advances in modern medicine are the result of
experimentation on unwilling test subjects. These subjects suffered greatly and
often died at the hands of experimenters who viewed them with absolute apathy,
as no more than a means to an end.

While most of us condemn such behaviour and find it reprehensible, we don’t
reject the medical knowledge obtained this way.

At a surface level, this might sound hypocritical. I don’t consider it to be so:
acknowledging the value of the knowledge does not imply moral acceptance of the
methods by which it was obtained.

Rejecting useful scientific or medical knowledge that was gathered through
unethical means would extend the suffering to those who could benefit from it,
but would not undo the harm already done. It would not bring peace to those who
suffered for it, nor justice to those responsible for that suffering.

Instead, we accept and make use of the advances obtained at a heavy price, while
still condemning the methods used to obtain them. We reject such behaviour in
modern research and refuse funding or support to those who would perpetrate
them. When it comes to experimenting on unwilling human subjects, the practice
is rightly outlawed.

I believe this stance is not only sensible in critical fields like medicine, but
also logical for fields like engineering and technology. We can condemn the
means by which an organisation achieves its goals or how it gathers the
resources and data necessary for its research, without rejecting the knowledge
gained. However, it remains our responsibility to avoid funding or in any way
supporting organisations that engage in such unethical practices. Knowledge may
endure, but the methods used to obtain it must not.