Her behavior is completely psychopathic.

It has to do with the integrity and willingness of someone to tell the truth; if she's willing to destroy evidence to avoid criticism, what other types of mistakes is she willing to cover up when dealing with a patient?

This seems pretty obvious, how are you not understanding this? It isn't her effort to produce new knowledge, its her willingness to lie in the face of failure.

If a patient of hers dies or starts to decline, she could falsify cause. The list goes on. She is so far on the slippery slope that it is dangerous for her to care for anyone.

▲

bonsai_spool 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> if she's willing to destroy evidence to avoid criticism, > ts her willingness to lie in the face of failure.

This was not presented in the original post. My question was, why is alleged research misconduct a disqualification?

Also a panel of this person's peers decided she merited reinstatement.

> If a patient of hers dies or starts to decline, she could falsify cause.

Not something that is happening in outpatient endocrinology.

	▲	blobbers an hour ago \| parent [-]
		There's plenty of chances for misdiagnosis in outpatient endocrinology. If she misses or delays a thyroid cancer diagnosis, or doesn't follow up with a patient at risk, etc, and then lies to cover it up. I answered your question clearly: research misconduct and her reasoning for it indicates a willingness to lie that should not be allowed in a high trust field such as medicine. She has been banned from receiving Canadian federal funding for life. Her medical license was reinstated but it was a split vote (3-2) and widely criticized, but she is banned from conducting research and has to be monitored by a therapist. I get that you like to argue, but you should probably learn to admit when you're wrong.