This is such a disingenuous sleight-of-hand - rebranding the idea that one should share published data as sinister "open science" in order to argue for data hoarding blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/h…
Sharing published data isn't "open science", it's "science"
To dismiss improving upon someone else's work and data as "competition" is to misunderstand the whole point of the scientific enterprise. 
You can not on the one hand ask the public for billions of dollars every year in the urgent quest to diagnose, treat and cure disease, and then turn around and sacrifice rapid progress so that someone can stroke their vanity with a second Nature paper.
And spare me the laughable notion that a Nature paper is merely a "progress update" - I've reviewed thousands of job applications and never once have a seen someone describe a CNS paper as a "progress update".
