I don't necessarily think the funding source means the study is invalid or corrupt, but I do think it should increase scrutiny and attention to replicability is

I don't necessarily think the funding source means the study is invalid or corrupt, but I do think it should increase scrutiny and attention to replicability issues and so forth. It shapes the actual (as opposed to claimed) posterior a bit. I had a colleague with this type of funding and I don't think there was any kind of quid pro quo or anything like that but I do think in the very least it increases pressure to file drawer unfavorable results to maintain funding. Empirically speaking funding source matters though in the way you'd expect, in terms of interpreting results: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/730383 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/730383