If science is to remain science, and not devolve into mysticism, data and computer models must be available to other researchers in order to repeat experiments and provide knowledgeable criticism. Calling anything "settled science" which is not openly available to all researchers is not scientific.
I have no beef with open audits of published science that is used in decisions of economic consequence.
But I would only add that sometimes you learn a lot more from trying to reproduce a result without the code/schematics of the original experiment. If you implement it yourself and get a different answer, you should publish it and not bias yourself by paying too much attention to the original authors interpretation. As long as you can justify your methods you should be fine.
Also, I feel that it's a lot more fun to design an experiment knowing that it's possible than it is to merely copy someone else's published procedure. A month in the lab spares you a day in the library!
