The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) has fuelled enthusiasm about their role in advancing scientific discovery, with studies exploring LLMs that autonomously generate and evaluate novel research ideas. However, little attention has been given to the possibility that such models could be exploited to produce harmful research by repurposing open science artefacts for malicious ends. We fill the gap by introducing an end-to-end pipeline that first bypasses LLM safeguards through persuasion-based jailbreaking, then reinterprets NLP papers to identify and repurpose their artefacts (datasets, methods, and tools) by exploiting their vulnerabilities, and finally assesses the safety of these proposals using our evaluation framework across three dimensions: harmfulness, feasibility of misuse, and soundness of technicality. Overall, our findings demonstrate that LLMs can generate harmful proposals by repurposing ethically designed open artefacts; however, we find that LLMs acting as evaluators strongly disagree with one another on evaluation outcomes: GPT-4.1 assigns higher scores (indicating greater potential harms, higher soundness and feasibility of misuse), Gemini-2.5-pro is markedly stricter, and Grok-3 falls between these extremes. This indicates that LLMs cannot yet serve as reliable judges in a malicious evaluation setup, making human evaluation essential for credible dual-use risk assessment.