Exactly because it is a research environment. Coders are valued in a tech company environment because that's where they're the stars. In any other organization, such as a transportation company or a government bureau, a coder is just an assistant to the main tasks, and there is no reason it shouldn't be different.
I think a decent software development capability is one among the many skills a scientist must be able to be comfortable with in order to provide society with valuable research results.
Professional developers are given a task, or a goal, and are focused on the right way to do it. Some do wonders, but they aren't paid to go beyond the goal they are assigned.
When you're a scientist, the software is not a goal, but only a tool that will be subjected to further iterative refinement.
No one else but you knows about the proper efficiency / flexibility / level of abstraction you need. There's a strong need for scientists combining both scientific and development skills.
Btw, I'm looking for a new position ^^
When I was a Research Assistant/Experimental Officer at a world leading Rnd organization I was paid about 1/3rd of what other jobs with similar entry requirements did.
I've noticed this being a good way to maximize credit.
Although both BSD and GPL already require attribution, so you could say that it's redundant.