In this perspective, we argue that despite the democratization of powerful tools for data science and machine learning over the last decade, developing the code for a trustworthy and effective data science system (DSS) is getting harder. Perverse incentives and a lack of widespread software engineering (SE) skills are among many root causes we identify that naturally give rise to the current systemic crisis in reproducibility of DSSs. We analyze why SE and building large complex systems is, in general, hard. Based on these insights, we identify how SE addresses those difficulties and how we can apply and generalize SE methods to construct DSSs that are fit for purpose. We advocate two key development philosophies, namely that one should incrementally grow - not biphasically plan and build - DSSs, and one should always employ two types of feedback loops during development: one which tests the code's correctness and another that evaluates the code's efficacy. Machine learning is in a reproducibility crisis [Hai+20; the code produces identical results - for replicability and Pin+21; Bak16]. We argue that a primary driver is poor code general reproducibility using independent implementations, quality, having two root causes: poor incentives to produce correctness is crucial.

Classifying samples in incomplete datasets is a common aim for machine learning practitioners, but is non-trivial. Missing data is found in most real-world datasets and these missing values are typically imputed using established methods, followed by classification of the now complete, imputed, samples. The focus of the machine learning researcher is then to optimise the downstream classification performance. In this study, we highlight that it is imperative to consider the quality of the imputation. We demonstrate how the commonly used measures for assessing quality are flawed and propose a new class of discrepancy scores which focus on how well the method recreates the overall distribution of the data. To conclude, we highlight the compromised interpretability of classifier models trained using poorly imputed data. All code and data used in this paper are also released publicly at [inserted upon publication].