Once the repeatablility of a result is ensured beyond all doubt, there is only the matter of logical development, interpretation, etc., which clearly has nothing to do with who funds you. (We’ve all got brains, haven’t we?) Of course, it takes time to become acquainted with a subject, and so a faulty study showing smoking is safe can give a nice sense of security.

Unfortunately, there is a sizable segment of the population with little knowledge of critical thinking and skepticism. However, the answer to “Who funds you?” is a poor substitute.

I’m only saying that not everyone is so fortunate, and just because a person doesn’t want to release sponsor details, doesn’t say anything about their science. Some very good health physicists are employed by the nuclear industry for example, and adding a manditory note to their papers saying their research is “sponsored” by the nuclear industry would not help them present their evidence!

The tobacco industry should fund research into cancer effects from its profits, similarly the nuclear industry should fund research into radiation effects and the ecology of fission products, etc.

Unfortunately, you don’t get my point, and you falsely claim that I’ve got my own axe to grind. The only axe is this: the public should be exposed to any technical details that are controversial.

They don’t need more bureaucracy to hint at political affiliations prejudicing results. The public would be more interested in science if the exact details are debated openly.

Your solution seems to be guilt by association, which I don’t think is scientific. Thanks for understanding.

I think this makes perfect sense for the reasons I said. There is no way that the public or our politicians will always be able to work through the details of all scientific studies etc., and they deserve to know, for example, whether research saying that cigarettes don’t increase the chance of lung cancer is being funded by the tobacco industry.

There is no way this is about the scientific establishment trying to keep the poor little overlooked and opressed “Einsteins” of the world down.

The question of who is funding is beside the point. Why do people have to disclose the source of their funding or anything of that sort?

It will just become another pseudo-scientific, group-think way to rank scientific papers without actually reading them. So-and-so’s research is funded by x, so we don’t need to read it. Somebody else’s is funded by y, so it is reputable. There is too much sneering at people as it is, when it is the content or lack of content that’s important.

The majority will do anything to stereotype things, and worrying about who is funding things will create additional unwanted sources of bias to slow down the acceptable of new ideas even more. I can understand your question if you were dealing with political candidates, but not for scientific work.