Science is best when the data is an open book

" ... To me it’s clear: researchers should routinely examine others' raw data. But in many fields today there is no opportunity to do so. Scientists communicate their findings to each other via journal articles. These articles provide summaries of the data, often with a good deal of detail, but in many fields the raw numbers aren’t shared. And the summaries can be artfully arranged to conceal contradictions and maximise the apparent support for the author’s theory. Occasionally, an article is true to the data behind it, showing the warts and all. But we shouldn’t count on it. As the chemist Matthew Todd has said to me, that would be like expecting a real estate agent’s brochure for a property to show the property’s flaws. You wouldn’t buy a house without seeing it with your own eyes. It can be unwise to buy into a theory without seeing the unfiltered data. Many scientific societies recognise this. For many years now, some of the journals they oversee have had a policy of requiring authors to provide the raw data when other researchers request it ..."