Agreed. I think results should be reproducible. I guess my point is that the amount of time spent writing up and communicating protocol should be governed by an analysis of the scientific benefits of doing so, rather than commercial benefits.

I'm not saying that protocols can't be improved at appropriate cost. Rather, I'm saying that the cost of creating protocols that random person at pharma company can use correctly the first time without asking for help is a going to result in an enormous amount of wasted time getting to a level of reproducibility that isn't necessary for doing good science (where good != profitable).

And at the frontiers of science where we're using a novel protocol for the first time, I think it's OK to publish without extensive documentation. If the protocol ends up being useful and important enough that other people want to use it, then that's the time to start investing time in high-quality documentation. Which is one of the scientific benefits of collaborative reproduction.

(FWIW I think michaelhoffman did a better job of capturing the essence of my complaint in a few sentences than I've done over multiple posts.)