Autism charity resignation debate

This Bad Astronomy post praises Alison Singer for resigning from her post as VP of Autism Speaks. The reason for her resignation: the charity's persistence in investigating the link between vaccines and autism, despite scientific research indicating no substantial connection:

In general, I disagree with a policy that says, “Despite what this study shows, more studies should be done.” At some point, you have to say, “This question has been asked and answered and it’s time to move on.” We need to be able to say, “Yes, we are now satisfied that the earth is round.”

Whatever one's position in the autism debate, the issue of personal responsibility to resign when disagreeing with an organization's actions warrants further examination. The heated comments thread in the BA post--109 comments & rising--points to the difficult situation faced by leaders of an organization such as Autism Speaks. If they reach a conclusion similar to that of Alison, cutting off support for a project that otherwise has a sizable constituency could have substantial consequences for projects the leaders deem to be more valuable. Moreover, the more leaders who resign out of the conviction that support for the project is wrong, the greater the likelihood that their positions will be filled with supporters of that very project.   

It's a scenario that leads to an all too common situation we do not discuss enough--nonprofit leaders who channel funds to projects that they personally don't think are effective in resolving the targeted problem, but are nonetheless necessary due to the group's internal politics.