If you replace scientists with coders then what you're saying is that programmers should allow people to see your code at any time, instead of allowing them to release the code when they see fit.

Since she states:

The first step is we need to upload all existing scientific research content and make that digital content accessible to anyone anywhere with the internet. Google is doing that. I admire sci-hub's efforts in this space. Sci-hub's team has done what I am too afraid to do myself.

The second step is we need to record all new information generated by today's scientists digitally.

Except code and science are completely different and in the context of the reasons why you'd want to force publishing, there's almost no link.

Coders aren't trying to prove truths about the world (generally), there is no logical relation between you not open sourcing your half finished MySpace clone and people sitting on negative results paid for with public funds.

It's such an obvious false equivalency that it's hard to even explain. It's like we're having a conversation about design of space suits for astronauts and you interject that it would be unfair to expect coders to wear space suits.

> programmers should allow people to see your code at any time

Sounds good