[sseveran]

Having been involved in both industry funded and government funded medical research I don't think this is a big deal. To me the most important thing is to make sure that it is disclosed. Many researchers that are great at what they do are highly sought after experts and they should be. The real question is one of integrity. If a researcher has integrity then they will be objective. If they lack integrity then they may be more willing to twist their findings, even if they don't outright manipulate them. It does no good for a company to fund a researcher who is ultimately proved to have faked data.

One note on public funding, I believe that there is just as much if not more pressure to shape conclusions from public funding sources. After all these organizations are composed of people as well who are often pursuing an agenda of some sort whether its overt or not. If a researcher is dependent on funding from an agency or a group inside an agency it is often in their best interest to ensure that their conclusions align with that agencies view. If not there is significant risk to future funding.

[malandrew]

It seems to me like funding should be "double blind" by having all participants on both sides of an issue that want research performed to funnel the money into a general purpose fund. Scientists should not know where the money is coming from, and industry shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which scientists do the research so there is equal chance of funding people with opposing viewpoints of what industry wants people to here.

AFAICT most corruption can be mitigated by clean interfaces that reduce if not eliminate conflicts of interest.