That's terrible specificity, but with a very high sensitivity the test may still have value as a "rule-out" type test. That is, you do this and if it's positive, you do a mammogram. Mammograms are generally very uncomfortable and read by specialized (more expensive) radiologists, so even preventing 1 mammogram for every 2 women getting the test has some value. Similar thing works with people getting Tb tests, or HIV tests. You have a cheap rule out high sensitivity test with low specificity, and follow the positives up with the more expensive sensitive and specific "gold standard" test. I don't see the misconduct based on this article alone.