While I am with everyone so far in this thread that data should be accessible, the cluelessness of many comments is striking.
There are quite some fields where you do not send your data for peer review, in most cases. There are much more where you do not publish the data, in most cases. And yes, there are plenty of reasons for that, and most of them are excruciatingly based on the culture of the specific branch of the specific field of the specific discipline of science.
While indignation in the current case seems to be in order because they asked a member of the editorial board to step down while they could and should have known his policies, this is certainly no reason for condescending remarks on the whole discipline.
And, just for the record, it is my belief that if everyone would try to do science properly from now on, then a dissertation would last at least eight years, the number of published studies would drop to about five percent of the current output and most universities would shut down in a couple of years because the funding system would collapse. Not gonna happen.
This is nothing you can discuss for everyone at once, and very certainly nothing
