The short excerpt from Aaron Ridley's book "Ill-Gotten Gains: on the use of results” from Unethical Experiments in Medicine” presents an argument for why the use of unethical research data is not inappropriate on the basis that it condones the unethical actions of the researcher. He affirms this position by arguing that condoning unethical behavior involves more than simply benefiting from the unethical person's work (Ridley). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Ridley supports this statement by providing a hypothetical situation in which a murderer dumps his victim's blood into a bucket and a secondary person finds this bucket, knowing exactly what this bucket contains and how it got there. Then suddenly, this secondary person is surrounded by flames and pours the bucket of blood on the fire, as it was the only weapon available, to save himself from the fire (Ridley). Ridley states that it would be wrong to say that this secondary person accepts the ways in which this blood was born, using it to his advantage to save himself. Nothing in this secondary person's behavior leads us to assume that he accepts the actions taken by the killer to fill this bucket (Ridley). This principle for condoning the use of unethically discovered research is flawed because the use of the research does not reflect/speak to the beliefs of those using the research, and more evidence is needed (Ridley). Who's to say that engaging with one's unethics implies one agrees with their methods. An alternative principle to prove this claim would be one that involves replicating unethical research methods. For example, it would be okay to only use the information you find, such as implementing the results of unethical research to promote your work. However, replicating the style of obtaining results, rather than applying the results, would appear to be condoning unethical behavior. The condition of this new principle is clear when applied to cases similar to the Vipeholm experiment. The Vipeholm experiment was conducted in Sweden between 1945 and 1954, where subjects were given excessive amounts of sugar in order to find a correlation between sugar intake and the formation of dental caries (Krasse 1785). From a scientific point of view, the study managed to find enough empirical evidence to demonstrate a link between sugar and tooth decay, and the results were widely used to benefit the broader population (Krasse 1787). However, forcing subjects to consume foods for the purpose of developing dental caries is unethical due to the harm it has caused to subjects. Now, using the research from this study, as many have done, we can put into practice that it is unhealthy to consume large amounts of sugar, as it can cause cavities and tooth decay. It is not at all obvious that making this statement justifies the behavior of the researchers involved in the Vipeholm experiment. We are simply taking this valuable information and applying it elsewhere in the medical field, for example creating a nutritional plan for children with limited sugar intake, to avoid a future of dental problems. That said, if we were to instead replicate the way the study was conducted, where subjects were forced to ingest harmful substances to cause disease, then that would be making use of unethical research and condoning its unethicality. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get.