I completely agree. At what point is it EVER ok to destroy scientific research data? I understand that in some fields the experiment products can be MASSIVE and

I completely agree. At what point is it EVER ok to destroy scientific research data? I understand that in some fields the experiment products can be MASSIVE and storing that raw data might be impossible or impractical (i.e. baseband radio data that might be terabytes per hour). In this case it's maybe a few tens of gigabytes of data if the files were properly digitized? At most a few tens of terabytes, which is chump change! I agree with the author's comments that this seems like retroactive action taken when it came to light that there might be other factors involved (the other lesion, etc). Or to prevent re-interpretation of her findings that might point out things she ignored/hid.