Reproducible Research, the de facto title of a growing movement within many scientific fields, would require the code, used to generate the experimental results, be published along with any paper. Probably the most compelling argument for this is that it is simply following good scientific practice, established over the years by the greats of science. It is further claimed that misconduct is causing a growing crisis of confidence in science. That, without this requirement being enforced, science would inevitably fall into disrepute. This viewpoint is becoming ubiquitous but here I offer a dissenting opinion. I contend that the consequences are somewhat overstated. Misconduct is far from solely a recent phenomenon; science has succeeded despite it. Further, I would argue that the problem of public trust is more to do with other factors. I would also contend that the effort necessary to meet the movement's aims, and the general attitude it engenders, would not serve any of the research disciplines well.