CCL: Science code manifesto

[Mark Zottola <mzottola*gmail.com>]

For all our concerns about the impact of this manifesto on science, I think most are missing what I believe to be an important aspect.  If a code is readily available for the scientific public, then it is readily available to the general public.  As one area mentioned in the manifesto was climate modeling, it is clear that enterprising non-scientists or muck-raking types can access these codes.

 

In any well-commented code, there are bound to comments like "applying the Fandoozie trick" or other such innocucous statements.  In addition, in any code of over 1000 lines there are bound to be bugs.  Can you imagine the public discourse when some rabel-rouser claims the software for climate modeling is flawed and he shows the offending code as "proof".  Flaws and "tricks", common to all software, have the potential to be exploited for political gain under this manifesto.

 

I'm not sure where the middle ground is when trying to make software open, accessible, and maintaining peer review without the introduction of politics.  I think this needs a lot more thought and consideration.

Mark Zottola