Non-industry-funded research can be biased, too.(POINT/COUNTERPOINT)

For almost 100 years, industry has been a powerful motivating force in the creation of new technology and the underwriting of scientific research. But in the last 2 decades, there has been a campaign to decry industry funding, claiming that such funding is tainting research.

It is not who funds the research; it is the quality of the research that counts. This rush to judgment against industry-funded science is problematic.

Right now, there is a lot of attention on the issue of disclosure. But the focus is on only one type of disclosure, and that is financial bias, specifically industry-funded financial bias.

The point is, we all have a bias. So it is a good thing that we disclose what that bias is. Is it industry-funded science? Fine. Let's disclose that, and let's encourage everyone to disclose what their other biases are, whether it's that they work for the government and perhaps want to get more funding for their agency, or whether they work on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.

All scientific research, regardless of the way it is funded, needs to be considered with the utmost skepticism. Every study should be evaluated to determine whether there is something wrong with it. To put additional skepticism on industry-funded research just because of the way the work is funded means that less scrutiny is being placed on non-industry-funded research.

By focusing on only one potential for bias, we are undermining the science. If some industry-funded research is bad science, that researcher should be kicked out of the field. But to say that the researcher should be criticized or punished for accepting industry funding to do his or her research misses the point. This is where the witch hunt is.

For me, the problem is when you get the science wrong, ...