What you're saying is certainly true, but I don't think you're addressing the criticism directly. The question is not, "Is there money to be made by bypassing t

What you're saying is certainly true, but I don't think you're addressing the criticism directly. The question is not, "Is there money to be made by bypassing the scientific method?" The question is, "Are there systemic biases that result from money's setting the research agenda?" It seems to me a virtual tautology that companies will only fund areas of research where they think they can make money, and so areas without apparent profit potential will be understudied. This is a reason why publicly funded, pure science is so important to me. I just want to make it clear that not everyone who is critical of the way science is practiced by human beings and institutions is "anti-science". One can still be a True Believer in the scientific method and its philosophical underpinnings, and yet still still believe that science as practiced has institutional blindspots.