When a scientist is hired by a firm with a financial interest in the outcome, the likelihood that the result of that study will be favorable to that firm is dramatically increased. This close correlation between the results desired by a study's funders and those reported by the researchers is known in the scientific literature as the "funding effect."

Scientific malpractice does happen, but close examination of the manufacturers' studies showed that their quality was usually at least as good as, and often better than, studies that were not funded by drug companies.

It has become clear to medical editors that the problem is in the funding itself. As long as sponsors of a study have a stake in the conclusions, these conclusions are inevitably suspect, no matter how distinguished the scientist.

The answer is de-linking sponsorship and research.

From the archive:

Perhaps the most powerful way in which we conspire against ourselves is the simple fact that we have jobs.

The evidence suggests that from an executive perspective, the most desirable employees may no longer necessarily be those with proven ability and judgment, but those who can be counted on to follow orders and be good "team players."

It's Not the Answers That Are Biased, It's the Questions