Does Utilitarian ethics have a place in Academia? Most academic ethics (indeed, most professional ethics in general) are heavily focused on Kantian/Deontological principles. For academics, the basic rules are blatantly Deontological - don't plagiarize, don't falsify data, don't cheat on exams, don't abuse research subjects, don't divert grant funds to unauthorized activities, don't engage in discrimination, etc. Is there a place in Academia for Utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number of people" ethics? At first this seems absurd - that anything worth doing is worth doing right, and that the damage done by violating ethical principles simply can't be quantified in any meaningful manner.

There are plenty of examples of post-facto ethical issues with respect to using past data obtained through problematic methods, but I'm asking about present day research. Can someone give an example of a scenario where an ethics committee, IRB, or other social establishment in academia might advise a researcher to go ahead and commit what would normally be misconduct because the likely benefits are just too great to pass up? For example, "This research is so important and so urgent that you need to do anything you can to finish it as soon as possible. Take restricted funds from other departments, bribe government officials, look the other way while your co-researchers sexually harass their grad students, inflate your own students' grades in exchange for extra work hours from them, do whatever you have to to finish it. Once you publish it will truly all be worth it as it will save countless millions from impending doom, balance the national budget, and restore Order to the Galaxy."

Note that I'm not asking about any specific scenario, but about whether utilitarian ethics even apply - that is, if having the basic rules (don't plagiarize, don't falsify, etc.) is normally just the most efficient way to do research (e.g. unfalsified data is worth much more than falsified data, a subordinate who is not being sexually harassed is less likely to quit in the middle of a big project and much less likely to sue, etc.), or if they are truly indispensable in all cases. I also recognize that the cases I am talking about are somewhat rare, probably more at home in a bad sci-fi movie than a real-life university, and that most people probably won't encounter them.

While "Nazi data" can be considered an example of this, I want to concentrate on other things that are less politically charged - say, deciding not to censure a professor for sexual harassment because of the importance of his current research, or falsifying a minor paper in order to qualify for grant money that you intend to use to do much more good than the harm caused by the falsified paper.
Yes, but not in the way you're thinking.
No, covering up a given researcher's misdeeds because their research is so important isn't acceptable under academic ethics, both under deontological ethics, but also under utilitarian ethics: almost all research is incremental in nature, with the potential direct human benefit being very small. Things like curing cancer or solving world hunger are very large, very difficult problems, that would require far more than a single researcher to solve, no matter how brilliant they might be. Further, by covering up a given researcher's misdeeds, you're creating an incentive (or, rather, removing a disincentive) that would act to increase other individuals to commit similar harms in the future.
However, there is a very important area where utilitarian ethics have a place in academia: the prioritization of research, through mechanisms like grant applications. When a grant committee is evaluating a grant application, they are carrying out a utilitarian calculation, comparing the benefits and costs of the research and thereby evaluating its utility.