Distribution of scientific results should be in the hands of the scientist
experiment.com
experiment.com
However, I don't think the author's premise is well founded. Every scientist dreams of publishing a beautiful, fully formed scientific discovery that emerges like Athena, immediately rocking their field and changing the destiny of mankind.
Most science is nothing like that. Most scientific results are comprised of unclear results in a specific model system that may have only speculative relevance to the real world (or to problems that people care about). Presentation, and public consideration and public discussion helps to refine models and cross-pollinate ideas that can lead to major discoveries. Little is gained by keeping data absolutely secret until a scientist is ready to publish.
No one will pay you to take your sweet time for several decades and publish if and when you are ready to revolutionize a field. You have to get enough done on a short timescale (a few years for a project that produces a handful of papers is fine) for funded work. Most of us also do have our unfunded pet projects that simmer on the back burner for longer, but these don't get anything like full time effort.
And this is mostly as it should be. You write software with short functions and tests, commit by commit, and release and revise episodically. Releasing one enormous, monolithic product after working in secret for 20 years produces science as awful as it does software, for the same reasons.
Just as a side-note: When I started my Ph.D. studies we had an "introduction course", going through requirements for graduating, seminars by more experienced scientists, what to expect and so on. In that course I encountered the absolute worst seminar speaker when it comes to the subject of motivation. The seminar speaker said that "If your research does not have a potential to receive a Nobel prize, stop doing it.". The speaker was at the time in industry because achieving wealth was a similarly admirable goal. It was extremely discouraging.
So, not typical (I hope), but some argues that fame and wealth are the only reasons to do science.
The author attempts to establish a false dichotomy between Scientists (author's capitalization) telling the Truth (implied capitalization) in their own precious snowflake time, versus the Truth (implied capitalization) never ever ever ever coming to light.
No argument is advanced to support the idea that scientists possessing snowflake secrecy increases epistemological veracity. In addition the narrative reeks of the worst form of fetishism of the scientific milieux.
The worst Hacker News link in years? It certainly pushed my buttons. Standards people!
Since she states:
The first step is we need to upload all existing scientific research content and make that digital content accessible to anyone anywhere with the internet. Google is doing that. I admire sci-hub's efforts in this space. Sci-hub's team has done what I am too afraid to do myself.
The second step is we need to record all new information generated by today's scientists digitally.
Coders aren't trying to prove truths about the world (generally), there is no logical relation between you not open sourcing your half finished MySpace clone and people sitting on negative results paid for with public funds.
It's such an obvious false equivalency that it's hard to even explain. It's like we're having a conversation about design of space suits for astronauts and you interject that it would be unfair to expect coders to wear space suits.
Sounds good
In other words: If you want unreproducible crap science to continue just go ahead.
Otherwise as practice shows scientists do not publish their raw data at all. Or worse, it ends up behind paywalls.
By the way author says the same as far as I can read and the title is wrong.