This is a great philosophy in software, where meaningful contributions can be made by any given person with a laptop. It's not as compelling when the only people who can meaningfully advance the research need to spend millions in grant money and/or allocate time to use expensive equipment that's shared across other research groups.
What is the difference? I would argue it is more important to publish early when using shared expensive equipment, since there is a huge opportunity cost to wasting resources when better information exists.
Science is generally dealing with more data than any one person can look at. Anyone with a laptop can provide unique analyses of the data which can fuel new hypotheses, which can be explored with simulations and further analysis.
the big machines represent a bottleneck only in the physical experiments that they enable, but a lot of science can be done around that.
Tighten the feedback loops by all means I say
Especially for public science, but that’s another story
Just want to add to this thought: this isn't to say I believe the status quo in academia isn't antiquated. It is. My point is that we can't just "take open source and move it over there," so to speak.
