The problem here is that everyone is making statements based on their definition of "ETHICAL".
There is nothing wrong with that as the purpose of the thread is to have an open debate.

The word goes far beyond science (although that is the basis of this thread).

The simple question one needs to ask is "How far should we go in the name science?"
The answer to that question is totally subjective.

The question can never be answered with big words and clever phrases.

Rather than look at the past regarding what the nazis did we must look at the world as it is today, because in many ways it is different.

If N.Korea (for example) made some unbelievable scientific gains in the future due to a lack of scientific ethics within that country, should other nations follow their example or be left behind?

No one can deny that ethics hold science back, that question has long been answered.
The question is, once again, "Should we totally abandon them and if not how far is too far in the name of science?"

Some pot head was talking about this stuff in my thread yesterday.

I had to steal his thread idea from him!

You are making me want to change the title to the thread.  Do you mind if I borrow your insight?

My initial (gut) reaction was to say yes, but the more I think about it the more I realize that my initial reaction was wrong ...

Most fields of study have very little to learn from using unethical methods, and most that do tend to be able to find a work-around their unethical methods within a reasonable timeline (usually as the result of developing a greater understanding of what they are working with), and most of the ethical problems we see researches deal with are a result of accurately measuring, reporting and publishing data. For every "monkey butler" we gained from ethics being removed from science, we would likely lose hundreds of other advancements due to the resources wasted investigating scientific dead-ends do to the unethical reporting of false results. 

Just trying to clarify your point.  You believe that false / incorrect data being used from illegitimate studies does the most harm in slowing progress?  Just reminds me of when good ole G.W. Bush appointed all industry insiders to important positions such as the EPA, Department of Agriculture, FDA, etc...  If anything he set back those departments a few years - decades of progress.