Career in science is more important than science itself
This smells rat: do you know who was Jean Pierre Flourens, by the way?
He didn't agree with Darwin. What if he was right to some extent?
Modern synthesis had seriously modified classical Darwinism anyway: Darwin had no ideas about genes, he believed in gemmules.
Since then questioning Holy Darwin (or Modern Synthesis: let's be honest, some of its stances are not entirely confirmed, speaking softly) became so dangerous that career sharks with potential research misconduct are so afraid of other approaches?
Yes, they are prone to research misconduct because they'd do anything to satisfy peer reviewers to please them: those publication sharks know that peer reviewers are rather loyal to orthodox version of evolution than are able to follow the math pointing to any controversy or inconsistency in Modern Synthesis approach.