Indirectly, that's exactly the reason why. * If the research points in the opposite direction of the desires of the research funders it will likely get squashe

Indirectly, that's exactly the reason why. * If the research points in the opposite direction of the desires of the research funders it will likely get squashed. Researchers aren't typically keen on putting their name on publications that are pointing to the opposite direction of the truth. * If the research points in the same direction as the desires of research funders, it gets published. It may be exaggerated, but research that has the correct direction but exaggerated scale isn't quite the black and white ethical dilemma that the former scenario is. So asbestos companies might publish research saying that the risk of cancer is low, but they won't publish research that says that it is an excellent antioxidant. This same observation also extends to insurance companies, but with insurance companies, the conflict of interest isn't the direction of research, it is the magnitude of the exaggeration. Because the gap between real risk and the fake published risk is their entire profit margin.