> That corporations sponsor academic conferences is natural: there are a lot of reasons it's useful: recruiting, networking, cooperating with other researchers,

> That corporations sponsor academic conferences is natural: there are a lot of reasons it's useful: recruiting, networking, cooperating with other researchers, etc. And for manipulating the scientific consensus, for rewarding scholars that agree with them, etc. But who actually cares? I don't think anyone was saying that sponsoring scientific conferences wasn't useful for corporations. It's a straw man. The question is whether it's good for science and public health, specifically in the case of neonicotinoids. > And they're the part of those scientific communities that has the spare money to be able to provide sponsorships. The fewer challenges to what is currently profitable to them, the more spare money they have.