I think I'm in the same boat as Ryan here. I cannot decide which is the best alternative.
The thing is that no, the ends do not ever justify the means. But like Quinny said, the information is already there, the end is already here, however unjustified it was to get it.
What i think is that there is a level of decision that doesn't need to be made but that is implied if you think that the information should be used; that you're somehow justifying what horrors the Nazis did. I don't think this is true, in that the horrors are horrors, the data, if useful, is useful.
I think that the experiments and the data are separate in that the experiments are morally unjustifiable, and the data are merely numbers and observations. The data itself is only tainted because of its origin, and these data never should have even EXISTED. However, it does, and the data is merely data.
There are two quotes from that site that i think sum up how i feel...
""[The Dachau hypothermia experiments were] conducted without an orderly experimental protocol [and] with inadequate methods and an erratic execution. ... There is also evidence of data falsification and suggestions of fabrication. Many conclusions are not supported by the facts presented. The flawed science is compounded by evidence that the director of the project showed a consistent pattern of dishonesty and deception in his professional as well as his personal life, thereby stripping the study of the last vestige of credibility. On analysis, the Dachau hypothermia study has all the ingredients of a scientific fraud, and rejection of the data on purely scientific grounds is inevitable."
--Dr. Robert L. Berger, New England Deaconness Hospital and Harvard Medical School  "
Now, if this is true of all the "science", then we shouldn't use it AT ALL. The facts are not scientific, they should not be used at all. Done.
"We are talking of the use of the data, not participation in these heinous studies, not replication of atrocities. The wrongs perpetrated were monstrous; those wrongs are over and done. How could the provenance of the data serve to prohibit their use?"
--The late Dr. Benjamin Freedman, formerly a bioethicist at McGill University in Montreal  "
If any bit of the data provided by the horrors were used to serve a human life, if any of it were in fact valid (which would be backed by a lot of information discovered ethically through true science), then i would see a point in using the data. They wouldn't in any way justify the methods, the data are data, and they would be helping (hypothetically) a human being.
"Perhaps the most intriguing question on which the issue of proper use turns is whether or not scientific data can acquire a moral taint. Common sense seems to indicate that a parcel of information about the physical world is morally neutral."
--Brian Folker and Arthur W. Hafner  "
I guess my position is this:
_ If the science is bad science, which most of it undoubtedly is, it should not be used, ever.
_ If there is a trace of good science, it could be used. I say could because im still not too sure. There seems to be some sense of morality still attached to the data, even though they aren't moral...
Here is the list of counterarguments: