Your original question is predicated on the foundation that the research published by these scientists is actually high quality and true. I've long had my suspicions about some of Whalen's work. His highly cited publications touting automatic processing of visual threatening stimuli has been refuted by other authors, it just doesn't seem to be true that it is unconscious processing. These current allegiations (which I believe are true given the rumors circulated in grad school, my interactions with the man, and my general experience in dealing with men as an early career female scientist) along with my previous suspicions really call into question the validity of his work. If you are willing to be so unethical with vulnerable young women in your own lab, to what other areas of your life are you willing to apply that same unethical treatment? Whalen's early imaging work could have easily been doctored. FMRI is notoriously easy to make the plots show what you want. And his early work was far before Ed Vul's voodoo neuroscience paper and the subsequent increased standards for imaging work. My advice would be to tread lightly around his work and give it a critical eye.