I think one could also argue that a lot of science research needs to improve it's engineering methodology.
One obvious problem in a lot of even hard-science research is that the end-product is a piece of paper with some formulas and graphs. In this era of computer-use, often a lot of software went into it's construction and that software is generally not released.
Just much, a lot of science uses Matlab, which pretty much inherently makes the results closed to further use. This has been argued here and I'm well aware a lot of results can be too preliminary for general use. But it's worth improving this.
After all, the degree of mathematical sophistication of physicists and biologists has increased over the years. It seems reasonable to ask that their software engineering sophistication improve also (not that software engineering is as exact as science of course).
One obvious problem in a lot of even hard-science research is that the end-product is a piece of paper with some formulas and graphs. In this era of computer-use, often a lot of software went into it's construction and that software is generally not released.
Just much, a lot of science uses Matlab, which pretty much inherently makes the results closed to further use. This has been argued here and I'm well aware a lot of results can be too preliminary for general use. But it's worth improving this.
After all, the degree of mathematical sophistication of physicists and biologists has increased over the years. It seems reasonable to ask that their software engineering sophistication improve also (not that software engineering is as exact as science of course).