[Yeah, didn't I share an office with you 15 years ago? :-) ]<p>But data can't always be reproduced - Shoemaker-Levy won't hit Jupiter again any time soon, and while big results will cause a rush for verification, the little steps are usually believed as is. Moreover astronomy is a special case where - let's face it - if we go down the wrong path for a decade or so, nobody's bleeding.<p>Take on the other hand the processing of climate data - if crap engineering (not malice) causes garbage to come out of the data, this is a problem for everybody. So I think the OP is right in that proper auditing of computer-processed science data should be possible, I was just pointing out that it's not as hard (technically) as people think to achieve.