From the food we eat to the air we breathe, corporate influence has become a powerful, often invisible force shaping scientific knowledge—and the consequences affect us all.
Imagine you're reading two studies about a new chemical used in food packaging. One study, conducted by independent university researchers, finds potential health risks. The other, funded by the chemical manufacturer, declares it completely safe. Who do you believe?
This scenario plays out daily across countless areas of science that shape our health, our environment, and our policies. From the food we eat to the air we breathe, corporate influence has become a powerful, often invisible force shaping scientific knowledge—and the consequences affect us all.
Products from five industrial sectors are responsible for nearly 30% of global deaths from chronic diseases 9 .
Some corporations knew their products were harmful for decades while actively working to conceal these dangers 9 .
This article will pull back the curtain on how corporate influence manipulates science and explore solutions.
Corporate influence on science isn't just about a few biased studies—it's a systemic issue affecting what research gets done, how it's conducted, and whether findings ever reach the public. At a time when federal funding for science faces significant cuts 1 , the lure of corporate research dollars becomes increasingly hard to resist for cash-strapped researchers and institutions.
This influence creates what scientists call a "funding effect"—a well-documented phenomenon where industry-sponsored studies are significantly more likely to reach conclusions favorable to the sponsor's products than independently funded research 6 .
Perhaps most troubling is how this manipulated science then infiltrates policy and regulation. Corporations don't just fund science; they fund influence. As one researcher notes, "It felt like every chemical had its own personal lobbyist" at regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency 9 .
Researchers who study industry documents have identified remarkably consistent strategies across different sectors. The table below summarizes the key tactics used to influence science and its application:
| Strategy | How It Works | Real-World Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Manipulating Methods | Designing studies to avoid detecting harms or exaggerate benefits 2 | Testing chemicals at lower doses or for shorter durations to miss long-term effects 2 |
| Reshaping Scientific Proof | Arguing for unreasonable standards of evidence before accepting harms 2 | Insisting on impossible proof (e.g., human experimental studies for known carcinogens) 2 |
| Threatening Scientists | Direct attacks on researchers who publish unfavorable findings 6 | Tobacco industry sending letters to universities protesting researchers' promotions 9 |
| Hiding Information | Concealing early warning signs of product harm 9 | Chemical companies knowing PFAS ("forever chemicals") were dangerous decades before public awareness 9 |
| Influencing Regulation | Placing industry-aligned experts on government advisory panels 9 | Hiring former regulatory agency employees to consult on influencing their former colleagues 9 |
"They basically cut their teeth on denying that tobacco causes disease. And then other industries can use the same techniques, the same PR firms, the same lawyers to make those same arguments."
What makes these strategies particularly effective is how they're shared and coordinated across industries. The same playbook developed by the tobacco industry has been adopted by fossil fuel, chemical, and food companies.
Researchers analyze internal industry documents to understand and expose these tactics. Organizations like UCSF's Center to End Corporate Harm use these documents to develop evidence-based solutions.
One documented case from the tobacco industry illustrates how these strategies work in practice. In the early 2000s, regulators proposed stricter safety limits for phosphine, a pesticide used in tobacco farming. Internal documents later revealed that tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, and others orchestrated an elaborate campaign to block these regulations 9 .
Companies identified and funded a scientist who was already skeptical about tighter phosphine regulations 9 .
Industry representatives ghostwrote a scientific article questioning the need for stricter limits 9 .
They secured publication in a scientific journal where their funded scientist served as editor-in-chief 9 .
The article did not adequately disclose the extensive industry funding and involvement 9 .
The published article was then used to argue against regulatory changes, presenting it as independent science rather than industry-funded work 9 .
Farmworkers and others exposed to phosphine faced continued health risks due to delayed regulatory action.
Seemingly legitimate scientific debate created confusion and delayed evidence-based decision making.
Bias was introduced into the scientific literature, making it harder to discern accurate information.
"These documents basically told us what was really happening."
The good news is that recognizing these patterns allows us to develop effective countermeasures. Researchers and policymakers have identified several promising approaches to protect scientific integrity:
| Solution Level | Specific Actions | How It Helps |
|---|---|---|
| Government & Institutions | Remove experts with financial conflicts from government review panels 9 | Prevents biased interpretation of science for regulation |
| Scientific Process | Identify and account for financial conflicts when evaluating studies 9 | Allows appropriate weighting of evidence based on potential biases |
| Research Funding | Increase government funding for science 1 9 | Reduces reliance on industry money and its attached strings |
| Transparency | Support repositories of industry documents 6 | Allows researchers to study industry tactics and reveal patterns |
| Public Engagement | Civic participation and voting for stronger protections 9 | Creates political will for evidence-based policies over corporate interests |
Individual actions matter too. As Tracey Woodruff advises:
But she emphasizes that individual action isn't enough—we need systemic change through civic engagement and voting for representatives who prioritize scientific integrity over corporate interests 9 .
Organizations like UCSF's Center to End Corporate Harm are using industry documents to expose these tactics and develop evidence-based solutions 6 . Their work, along with that of other researchers, provides a roadmap for reclaiming science for the public interest.
Corporate influence on science isn't an abstract issue—it affects the quality of our air, the safety of our food, the medicines we take, and the credibility of the scientific information we use to make daily decisions.
The same strategies first pioneered by the tobacco industry have now been adopted across multiple sectors, creating what some researchers term an "industrial epidemic" of chronic diseases 6 .
of global deaths from chronic diseases are linked to products from just five industrial sectors 9
The challenge is significant, but not insurmountable. By understanding the tactics used to manipulate science, supporting independent research, demanding transparency, and engaging in the political process, we can begin to rebalance the scales. The choice is ours: will we allow science to become another commodity available to the highest bidder, or will we protect its role as a generator of knowledge for the public good?
"Industry has a profit motive. They're responsible to their shareholders. They're not responsible to the public's health, so we have to force the issue."
Our health, and the integrity of science itself, depends on the choices we make today.