&gt;&gt; It blows my mind that people judge scientific work based on its funding source over its content and merits. Not saying its irrelevant, but good science is good science and bad science is bad science, regardless of who paid for it.<p>I don&#x27;t think anyone would argue with that, but I think determining what is &quot;good&quot; science and what is &quot;bad&quot; science is out of the reach of most people, let alone people who understand the scientific process.  There&#x27;s also often more than one conclusion to be drawn from any data, as well as the difficulty in gathering sufficient data or even knowing whether the data gathered is enough to provide any kind of accuracy.  I think the &quot;who paid for it&quot; question has been used more and more try and provide more context (sometimes useful, sometimes harmful) into scientific or psuedoscientific conclusions... of course it gets misused as a non-sequitur just like everything else in rhetoric.<p>Again, not saying it&#x27;s right, just trying to provide the context for _why_ people might use financial motives to judge scientific merit.