In your opinion, how important is the problem of funding bias in scientific research?

Answer Explanations

• Extremely important

  MeikoT
  The bias skews the pool for some applied science applications. 
• Not at all important

  user-477751
  As long as you perform good quality work and openly communicate results and limitations, funding source is not important
• Very important

  user-658650
  Direct and indirect conflicts of interest. Specific bias towards funding one kind of science over the other can lead to self-referential culture with very little room for innovation and creativity. Also often this is very short sighted. 
• Moderately important

  user-753537
  varies a lot!! One can perform highquality research with industry funding and one can often not 'survive' without. But there are risks. 
• Extremely important

  user-208427
  Tobacco research funding is heavily discounted due to major bias in influencing outcomes. In general the topics being researched everywhere are completely dependent on funding bias
• Very important

  user-445218
  The pressure to please a client/sponsor is always there
• Extremely important

  user-99889
  Funding bias prevent researchers to pursue their research ideas 
• Very important

  user-248520
  In Toxicology, selective reporting more concerning for private organisations and especulative look for toxicological risks more concerning for public organisations to get funding 
  
  
  
• Very important

  user-862192
  This is very important for journal, majority of scientific community by creating faithfulness between them. Every funders have their own goal in addition to their acknowledgement needed for them.
• Very important

  user-771432
  funding is biased for program that are likely to succeed rather than fund innovation and break-through idea
• Very important

  user-813282
  We always need funding, and we are obliged to spend a lot of time into this quest, which is in turn detrimental to the core of our activity (research). We need to prove all the time that we are competent and have good ideas, a situation that is laughable given (usually) our scientific files!
• Extremely important

  user-259663
  Enterprises and companoes providing funding for research sometimes exert strong pressure on reseachers, looking for results, this can cause strong bias in data in unexperience researchers' and bad remunerated ones. Both are plausibles and very commons.
• Very important

  user-86763
  'Routine' studies aiming to support a well-supported hypothesis/theory are clearly preferred.
• Extremely important

  user-683654
  I do believe that funding bias is highly important because many people from less developed countries find it extremely difficult to get money from the advanced countries for their. Thus, they go to these very advanced countries to do their research thus, limiting serious contributions to their parent countries.  
• Very important

  user-526415
  It can muddy the results, which can be catastrophic.
• Very important

  user-32201
  When funding sources have vested interests in the outcomes of research the results can be skewed to favor those interests. This can lead to biased conclusions, selective reporting of data, or even suppression of unfavorable results. 
• Not at all important

  user-179600
  because funding bias affects the outcome of research.
• Extremely important

  user-93827
  Biased networks dominate the funding here in Australia
• Very important

  user-531362
  Some important research topics that could inform policy are left out without funding whilst others are partially funding leading to early termination.
• Extremely important

  user-379007
  Sponsoring a study is an integral part to reach the publication of any research paper. There are multiple sources of funding and each has its special characteristics, for instance the non-profit is less likely to be affect the evidence quality. We can also classify funding bias according to the stage when the funding has started, or to the source of funding itself. In my experience, I needed funding for one of my papers at the publication stage, the funder pay it right away after it has been approved by the journal, and the process was wholly blinded while sponsoring. 
• Very important

  user-331239
  The funding agencies in developed regions such as the USA, UK, Canada and Japan specify citizenship criterion (e.g. NIH, Russel Sage Foundation, ERC) which prohibits and limits opportunity for developing countries to benefit from funds aimed at scientific research in the countries where there might be greater scope to benefit from science (larger societal benefits). Further, funding (in India) is largely for research that will create a patentable idea, a product - rarely for fundamenetal, theoretical ideas that might be the backbone of planning science endeavours for the benefits of society. This has probably created a lot of supremely elegant but less than useful science - especially in fields that intersect with engineering such as cognitive scieces where a proposal can be funded even in absence of a solid rationae as long as it asks for large funding for use of neuroimaging, eye tracking, brain computer interaction, and now AI-ML and simulation. Funding that biases against country/nationality or ideas and applicability might be less than useful for societial benefits. 
• Extremely important

  user-613823
  Bias is unavoidable when there is funding. When I self-fund, I experience independence.
• Very important

  user-803280
  There is plenty of evidence in the past for companies supporting biased research, such as tobacco and oil-gas. In those cases, the companies fund research to reach their specific goals. These intentional o unintentional biased studies impact on the reputation of all the scientific community.