I doubt she thinks MOND is a candidate for a family of fundamental theories (MOND itself is not relativistic; fixes for that -- at least where the result is a m

I doubt she thinks MOND is a candidate for a family of fundamental theories (MOND itself is not relativistic; fixes for that -- at least where the result is a metric theory -- tend to cause geometry problems at solar system and cosmological length scales, and relic radiation is also extremely sensitive to geometry; and why would an extended metric theory have a better answer to perturbative non-renormalizability?). However, there's lots of scope for taking an unphysical and even incomplete theory seriously [this supergravity researcher puts it well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/earning-a-phd-by-studying-a-theory-that-we-know-is-wrong/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/05/earning-a-phd-by-stu... ] Relativistic approaches to MOND might eventually raise interesting questions about the EFT, and those are what a QG phenomenologist lives for. So it's easy to see why she'd take MOND seriously without taking it too seriously. (As an example, Verlinde's recent work is partly provoked by MOND, and it's also nice to see a string theorist step outside of the AdS comfort zone and confront what we see in our sky).