[bonsai_spool]

> 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]

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.

[bonsai_spool]

I can see you think you are correct and aren’t really engaging with my arguments- fine.

The original post gave no reasons for not liking the person, and then said she had this research thing. If someone looked into your past, what would they find?

I see your point about morality, but that has very little to do with essentially following algorithms all day.

Had the OP said something related to medicine vs feeling bad vibes, we’d be in a different position.

admit when you’re wrong - holy ad hominem, Batman