Cultural Anthropology makes my brain tingle.

So I was reading about ethics and research and it got me thinking about the Nazis.

What happens when valid results are produced from not so ethical means? Are the results the Nazis came up with discounted and shelved because of the horrible ways they got them or have they been used in the hope that
something good come out of it?

And what if it's something not so evil but still tainted? Some of Chagnon's research on Brazilian indians came into question because of the mercenary means with which he came up with some of it (bribes such as machetes). Kenneth Good, Chagnon's assistant, had his objectivity question because of his romantic involvement with one of the Yanomamö women. So, if that were taken as truth, what would happen with the results of their years of research that wasn't "tainted". Is it still something that should be used even though the methods and circumstances are in question? By using it, does that condone the less-than-ethical methods used to gain them? And by still using it, does that send a message to other scientists that the results are more important than the method used to get them?

Also...

Do scientists, especially those on longitudinal research, affect the development of the societies they are studying? From what I am reading (and I don't agree with this idea which is why i got a question wrong in the true/false part of this weeks quiz :P) it seems that yes, if they need to direct a society towards one of their own values, they can do what they can to make it come true. So is this studying a society or molding one?

Deep thoughts by Jenn Handy ><