Nature editor: researchers should be forced to make data public

As a new recruit working in the pharmaceutical industry I was told that the only thing between another thalidomide and todays practises was the potential for bad publicity. In other words nothing had changed about the subterfuge in wording within a research paper except not to go as far as thalidomide. So the evidence that a new drug works for something is so far doctored as to mislead the buyer. If researchers come business men/women do that with drugs what else. Come on now stop misleading people show all parts of the research process. Everything.

Isn't it a little ironic for the editor-in-chief of Nature to be in favour of mandatory data and code deposition, whilst the journal itself does not offer an open access option, apart from making the accepted manuscript available six months after publication? I'm also curious about the pilot platform for sharing source code; will this be freely available at the point of deposition, or will it follow the same setup as Nature itself; behind a paywall or released after 6 months? You could be in the curious position of having access to the data, but not the published paper.