I think there is a useful distinction to be made between the impact that financial support has just by existing, and the leverage that can give the sponsor if t

I think there is a useful distinction to be made between the impact that financial support has just by existing, and the leverage that can give the sponsor if they choose to use it. If I offer a 1mm grant the use of X drug on Y disease, I am being opinionated about where time should be spent and what diseases are "important". This is not neutral, and can be very political. However, this is in a different universe than if I offer the grant with strings attached like editorial control on the paper(s), or a veto on publishing. As you note, most failed research doesn't get published but vanishingly small amounts of that are due to outside pressure, it's mostly more mundane reasons. Research is sponsored by, and done by people, hence it is flawed. But the best of is places value on the rigor of the research regardless of outcome, and certainly does not attempt to silence results that are not favourable to the sponsors goals. Commercially sponsored work should aspire to this in the same way that public research does - the specific outcome the sponsor hopes for is progress in our understanding. In both cases, sometimes the results are damaging to other projects you have (business goals, policy programs, etc.) which is the real test.