As far as I can see, this is utter nonsense, even within context of the slide (see also this discussion on FriendFeed). Obviously, within the context of Ian it does makes sense, and I hope he will respond in his blog and explain why he thinks Open Data is more special.
Without code, you have no way of accessing the data. Ask anyone to recover from a hard disk failure. In ODOSOS (Open Standards, Open Data, Open Source) they are all equal. You need them all for progress. You cannot single out one as being more important than another. Why would you anyway? Politics is all I can think of... All three combine and ensure our science is more efficient.
Fishy Perspective (what's in a name) comments on this in Data Vendetta, and I will take one quote out of context:
- Organizations are spending lot of money do generate proprietary data to safeguard its competitive edge, why you are convinced that they need to disclose that, no one is here for charity. Most the companies have their proprietary data policies, and they release the data in public only when there is sufficient overlap from publicly available databases.
Companies are about money making, and there is nothing wrong with that. Others to work to make the world a better place.
If Rosalind had not shared her data (following Data Vendetta, and not going into whether she did willingly or knowingly), all current pharmaceutical research would have been delayed by half a year(?), more(?)... who knows. Even that half year would have meant quite a lot of death people. A lot of medicine would have not been discovered or hit the market at the same time. Capitalism is one thing, not good, not bad, orthogonal really. Capitalism as ideology does not contradict Open Data. But sharing knowledge as Open Data always has a positive effect on mankind.
If you want to make money, please do, as much as you can. But please pick carefully what you want to make money on. Be creative! Do some innovation! Be bold! Go where no one has gone before!