I don't see how you could conclude that a work is evil/inappropriate based solely on the source of that work without committing what amounts to a genetic fallacy.

I mostly see it within the community even among intellectuals. For instance when they first meet the output they venerate but soon after they learn the source, they cold-shoulder. This situation makes me think over it

I thought work = modern slavery where you get just enough to escape the definition of slavery. It's a jedi mindtrick.

what about a work of self-improvement which is independent of an authority? For instance sculpture or experiments of a scientist?

Likewise, how people should handle any brilliant work that is stemming from an evil source? — astroarmut

What is this thread about?

how should a community approach to the source-output link ethically? Likewise, how people should handle any brilliant work that is stemming from an evil source? — astroarmut

Likewise? Those are two totally different questions.

I think that is the core part. Let s say there is a scientist who tries to create a medicine for a critical illness. But he/ she has to kill 82 kids to get the requisite ingredients. He does that and find the cure which works well. Killing 82 kids is evil part; a cure that converts the fatal illness into a petty complain is brilliant part. While knowing 82 kids are the source of the brilliant panacea how should the patient feel to use the medicine?

I think that is the core part. Let s say there is a scientist who tries to create a medicine for a critical illness. But he/ she has to kill 82 kids to get the requisite ingredients. He does that and find the cure which works well. Killing 82 kids is evil part; a cure that converts the fatal illness into a petty complaint is brilliant part. While knowing 82 kids are the source of the brilliant panacea how should the patient feel to use the medicine?

what about a work of self-improvement which is independent of an authority? For instance sculpture or experiments of a scientist? — astroarmut

All slogans for work- "Work hard, play hard".. "Work for its own sake".. "Work sets you free".. They all work similarly as propaganda to get humans to do more.. Just like the invisible hand- self-improvement becomes society improvement.. Individuals are simply used by society.. these slogans are more blatant about using people. In this case it is horrible in how it was meant to be ironically cruel. So I would say the slogan is never good in any context. Even outside of its horrible origins.

how should the patient feel to use the medicine? — astroarmut

Useless question. Feelings are feelings, they are what they are, and there is either no accounting for them, or it is extremely difficult to account for them.

Now your question, "how should the patient feel?" has been answered. But it seems likely to me that this thread is not about how anyone feels. Am I wrong? Or is it about something else?

Judge claims and other work on their own merit. Don't judge them on unrelated factors. As pointed out above, that's the genetic fallacy.