Science Code Manifesto: Science needs code and code needs to be valued

I am really impressed and excited by the creation of the Science Code Manifesto under the auspices of the Climate Code Foundation (see http://climatecode.org/blog/2011/10/science-code-manifesto/ ). I’ve had nothing directly to do with the formulation, other than being part of the CCF (advisory board) and having helped to create the Panton Principles which have acted as a guide.

Here’s the key message:

Software is a cornerstone of science. Without software, twenty-first century science would be impossible. Without better software, science cannot progress.

Those of us who hack for science know this, of course. But most scientists and most non-scientists don’t realise that software is part of the language of science. As much as maths. As much as reagents. Or instruments. Or Popperian principles.

Software does so many things.

• Discovers
  
• Informs
  
• Validates
  
• Transforms
  
• Reasons
  
• Simulates
  

And that’s just for starters. It’s encapsulated in The Fourth Paradigm (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/fourthparadigm/ ) – the inspiration of Jim Gray – that discovery will increasingly come from data-intensive science.

But the culture and institutions of science have not yet adjusted to this reality. We need to reform them to address this challenge, by adopting these five principles:

Code

All source code written specifically to process data for a published paper must be available to the reviewers and readers of the paper.

Copyright

The copyright ownership and license of any released source code must be clearly stated.

Citation

Researchers who use or adapt science source code in their research must credit the code’s creators in resulting publications.

Credit

Software contributions must be included in systems of scientific assessment, credit, and recognition.

Curation

Source code must remain available, linked to related materials, for the useful lifetime of the publication.

Founding Signatories

Nick and David deserve special credit. They’ve seen the vision that science in climate requires validated computation and they’re currently devoting their lives to making this happen. They’ve found time to generalise this to science in general and include an excellent range of other drafters and signatories.

There’s an n-squared or even better effect here. Everytime principles of this sort are created they not only help to confirm and refine the ideas, they spread out to other communities. I’m particularly keen to see the Open Science Allaince involved – that’s where I shall be in ten days time.

Life is so exciting. We are gradually but steadily laying the cornerstones of new ways of thinking and acting.

Join us – and support Nick and David if you can.