Ethics of using unethically obtained results

I recently rewatched an episode of Star Trek Voyager about the doctor faced with a critical medical problem. This critical medical problem involves the chief engineer of the ship and a sentient parasitic organism surviving on the chief engineer's body to compensate for what was lost in the parasitic organism. The doctor is out of his element so a suggestion was to create a hologram medical consultant with expertise in similar matters. Unfortunately, this consultant is a representation of a doctor who has made discoveries through unethical means.

The issue is whether to use this consultant's expertise to save the chief engineer's life. The episode explored a lot of the different dimensions of this moral quandary.

From a practical perspective, I would use this consultant's expertise as it already exists. If I had more time, maybe I could rely on it less. But should it matter if I had more or less time?

Maybe we should just recognize that a lot of knowledge we have may have been obtained under circumstances which, in hindsight, could be construed as iffy. But if this is the case, we should have resources to discuss and process the iffy-ness.

Something similar has happened in statistics. A key method in statistics called maximum likelihood estimation was a breakthrough invented by R. A. Fisher. Fisher was a proponent of eugenics. There is also evidence that he is a difficult person to interact with in an academic setting. It seems a waste to get rid of a method of estimation which has produced discoveries (all of which could be tainted in some way). In some sense, learning more about the person behind the method may help us detach the person from the idea.

I wonder if something like this could be done in art or in media?