To override Spock's logic requires some serious rule breaking. Sean Bean's Mitch Hendersen has to release confidential files to the Hermes crew, who in turn must mutiny to execute the plan, two acts that it's made very clear will have serious repercussions; Hendersen must resign when it's all over (that is in three year's time, but whatever) and some of the crew stand ready to be court marshalled. And yet none of that comes to pass. Heck, Jeff Daniels' Teddy Sanders manages to get away with not doing any inspections on a crucial launch scott free (not a pun this time, I assure you). How are such strict rules broken without any punishments at all? The simple answer to how they got away with this is an extension of the "needs of the many" argument - the mission was pulled off; after that, to point the finger of guilt would be an admittance of NASA's own original misjudgement and ultimately do more harm than good. But, befitting of the film's factual backdrop, it also highlights a key part of scientific advancement. The Martian is showing that the ends can justify the means, while also raising the fear such recklessness can create. The debate over correct method - scientific, political or otherwise - runs through the film, from choosing to not inform the Hermes of Mark's survival through to the final decision to blow the airlock in the climax. And while a case leaning towards one side is made, the sheer danger of failure involved leaves the topic open for further discussion.
