I think that the 'raw coding' style the author sees in scientists is desirable because that's essentially the base level of programming that even software engin

I think that the 'raw coding' style the author sees in scientists is desirable because that's essentially the base level of programming that even software engineers think in. But then software engineers jump one level higher and try to organize and abstract things. Not everyone can effectively write complex code on that level, and it's also an area where everyone has their own opinion on best practices or style. Personally I often tend to write messy and 'not best practice' code until I know what direction I'm headed in. Then I refactor. I recently turned a few hundred lines of if-statements into a sensibly organized piece of code. But I think the problem here is bad software engineers. And I don't think we should be apologists for poor coders (scientists or otherwise). If an organization accepts mediocre code from non software engineers, that's fine and more power to them. But I don't think it's good to encourage poor programming anymore than it is to tell kids grammar and spelling don't matter because it's better to read short slang phrases than long sentences no one will understand anyway.