Until the 19th century, most science was conducted by gentlemen-natural philosophers or by very worthy commoners (or poor nobility) who could ingratiate themselves with some prince or other who wished to be known as a patron of brilliant men who did great things.

With the advent of free market capitalism, entrepreneurs began hiring scientists in the 19th century. Some entreneuers (and some scientists and engineers who became rich from their inventions) endowed universities to defray the expenses of university scientists. These are called, "Endowed Chairs" -- which makes me think of a chair with big breasts. Then the land grant system really started kicking-in some serious cash to public universities and they began major research, mostly in agricultural and mechanical engineering (like LSU A&M, Texas A&M, etc).

Then WWII opened the federal treasury through the War Department which resulted in science (mostly chemistry and physics) and engineering (mechanical, electrical, & aeronautical) becoming increasingly funded for weapons projects of various sorts.

At the present time, I don't think anybody who does science or engineering in any university is without some taint from the funding source. And if you think about it, that taint has always been the case. Everybody except a few eccentric rich geniuses has to suck-up to some agency or some fatcat to get money for their research.

So when we say we don't trust science funded by say, oil companies, who do you think should fund the science, Greenpeace? The government? Some rich guy? Which of those sources is without a certain perspective that might influence the researcher?

B