tl;dr: bias I think the problem is that there is an obvious incentive for the author to achieve research findings that support their enterprise, and ignore the

tl;dr: bias I think the problem is that there is an obvious incentive for the author to achieve research findings that support their enterprise, and ignore the facts that are contrary. It's an opening for corruption/conflict-of-interest. That's not to say that it's not possible that they are both correct in their findings and able to make money off it, but it does reduce their credibility. Who's advice do you take more seriously, the guy with a horse in the race, or the guy without?