2

SciPoll 777: Perceptions of Research Funding Sources

DOI:10.63565/scipinion.scipoll.777

In your opinion, how significantly does the source of funding influence the credibility of scientific research?

Share Page
Post on LinkedIn
Copy URL to Clipboard
Copied!

Results
(240 Answers)

Survey results show varying opinions on how funding sources influence research credibility. 27% of experts rated this as "Extremely important," while 36% considered it "Very important." 28% viewed it as "Moderately important," 9% as "Slightly important," and only 7% as "Not at all important."

Those rating funding source as highly important often cited concerns about:

  • Potential bias when research is funded by entities with vested interests
  • Higher perceived credibility of government/public funding (particularly NIH) versus industry funding
  • Pressure researchers may feel to produce results favorable to funders
Those rating it less important emphasized:

  • Research methodology and data quality matter more than funding source
  • Researcher integrity can overcome potential funding bias
  • Transparency in disclosing funding can mitigate credibility concerns
Summary Generated by AI

Answer Explanations

  • Extremely important
    user-37077
    Funding must come from sources that are apolitical and reputable.
  • Very important
    user-751315
    Under the current fascist US regime, funding will be based on political pandering and not honesty.  This kind of "research" is necessarily garbage.  
  • Extremely important
    user-475346
    NIH represents funding coming from US taxpayers, with funding priorities that should represent all of these individuals. Also, NIH funding is considered to be more transparent and less likely to generate conflict of interest regarding data analysis and reporting than funding from pharmaceutical companies, for example.
  • Extremely important
    user-548458
    Without financing it is challenging to perform researche
  • Very important
    user-755788
    In some fields I'm familiar with, the only time the specific technology functions as marketed is when teh research is funded by the technology providers. 
  • Not at all important
    user-546903
    Approach, methods, and data are all that matter.
  • Very important
    user-776797
    Funding sources that are very competitive tend to require credible work
  • Very important
    user-143710
    It is prestigious to get funding from NIH grants.  That seems to be bleak for most new NIH grants.
  • Not at all important
    user-657321
    Who pays for the work does not matter at all: it all comes down to people who do the work: their qualifications, ingenuity, and integrity.
  • Moderately important
    user-120105
    When funding is supplied by companies there is pressure to report finding in a favorable light to their products. This can lead to some researchers distorting data etc., to make their funding more secure.
  • Extremely important
    user-553722
    Funding introduces bias
  • Moderately important
    user-848733
    The USA university system, whereby researchers have to 'win' their salaries through govt-funded research grants meant people rarely question or confront the dominant narrative. As you can imagine, the dominant narrative is led by the powerful. A very dangerous situation for poor people in poor countries.
  • Very important
    user-655754
    Ultimately, the design of the research is what matters. But if the source is biased (e.g. a business trying to profit from a particular outcome), the research is less trustworthy. 
  • Very important
    user-255226
    Science needs funding. So, it will be affected.
  • Very important
    user-701806
    See above comneny
  • Moderately important
    user-89669
    As long it is independent from commercial interests, I guess it is ok
  • Very important
    user-33865
    Bias faktor
  • Very important
    user-426958
    Reputable institutions carry the trust badge along with them. And generally, research programs are trusted to be of value to society when large economic players are involved.
  • Extremely important
    user-426175
    To simplify it there are two big groups of science: i) credible and ii) not trustworthy. All of this is based on prejudices. (credible sciencecn be found in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, etc. Not trustworthy: Iran, Egyptian half of China, 
    Instead, all submission should be evaluated separately without knowing the source of origin.
  • Very important
    user-683654
    If you do not have funding, it is difficult to do a very credible research. 
  • Extremely important
    user-430707
    Target base research oriented task could be only achieved through particular funding source. 
  • Extremely important
    user-555542
    Funding from private companies may be heavily biased by commercial pressuresm, while public funding is generally affected by these biases to a lower extent.
  • Moderately important
    user-920129
    Although the theme and objectives of any research project are very important for the significance and impact of the project, the funding source also plays a critical role in the credibility of the scientific project. However, the credibility of scientific research should not be sole determinant. Moreover, sometime funding sources can influence credibility due to conflicts of interest. Generally, public grants (NIH, NSF etc) are considered more credible because of competitive peer review allocation but political influence sometimes can shift priorities. However, private funding drives more innovation but scientific integrity is compromised when they are more inclined towards profit motives.
  • Very important
    user-887203
    Because when scientific research receives corporate financial support it may introduce conflicts of interest in study methodologies, execution, and dissemination, with outcomes potentially skewed toward the sponsor’s interests.
  • Not at all important
    user-761199
    I have never had a funder try to influence my research 
  • Extremely important
    user-787946
    NIH studies are reputable. 
  • Extremely important
    user-691334
    Private funding always comes with strings attached.
  • Slightly important
    user-869302
    To the extent credibility is a function of perception, audiences tend to question research if they believe funding sources could have an influence.
  • Slightly important
    user-464698
    The credibility of scientific research is more influenced by the availability of funding than its sources.
  • Very important
    user-738385
    The source of funding is critical on determining the credibility of scientific research because of the stringent processes in methodology as well as in reporting. Highly skilled and experienced staff are involved in the implementation of activities, including monitoring and evaluation to ensure only high quality results are disseminated in peer reviewed journals.
  • Very important
    user-359641
    If the funding source has a strong agenda or bias to direct the research outcome before the research is initiated, then the results cannot be trusted.
  • Moderately important
    user-827817
    It impacts perception, even where it does not impact quality. It's an issue.
  • Extremely important
    user-553126
    scientific research funded by a government agency is not biased in a particular direction. If research is funded by industry results may biased to favor that industry.
  • Slightly important
    user-334263
    There may be few research organizations that may want to tailor their research outcomes to favour their funders
  • Slightly important
    user-293230
    Private funds used to directly research a product by the same or similar company is a textbook conflict of interest, but rarely does this occur and rise to the level of influencing credibility. 
  • Very important
    user-740795
     
    The source of funding can significantly impact the credibility of scientific research, especially when there is a potential conflict of interest and a lack of transparency or independent oversight.

  • user-278358
    US stopping supporting WHO and NGO USAID which affect me indirectly
  • Moderately important
    user-244210
    Industrial funding can be self-serving and create the suspicion of bias in the results.
  • Extremely important
    user-884562
    Because it shortens the research publication period 
  • Moderately important
    user-126332
    Blatant conflicts of interest need to be considered. A tobacco company that pays a lab to research the health impacts of smoking presumably hopes for a particular outcome. 
  • Slightly important
    user-446741
    Commercial influence on research outcomes is largely overblown, but must be monitored and controlled effectively.
  • Very important
    user-984622
    The most credible funding sources go through fairly transparent and rigorous peer review.  Funding works best when researchers have flexibility to change the direction of approaches to answering research questions at their discretion.  
  • Slightly important
    user-93830
    If the scientist who is doing the research is honest, it makes no difference who is funding the research. 
  • Very important
    user-935064
    For the past decade or more, the field of science has been infiltrated by practitioners who are prone to what has been termed the "bending of science."  Studies have shown that the source of funding, especially if not disclosed, influences the design and interpretation of data.
  • Not at all important
    user-388091
    Not sure I understand the question. We scrap for money - whether it comes from American Cancer Society or the NIH, we bust our butts 24/7 to make progress. 
  • Very important
    user-790912
    Funding from non-commercial sources is viewed by most researchers as an UNBIASED source. When the funder has a propritary interest, i.e. widgets and gadgets, then the results are viewed as having a potential bias. Also, commerncial funders do not support the type of basic research that is needed before clinical trials, etc. 
  • Very important
    user-696023
    Every scientist has to please his funder, otherwise his money dries up. This is not science but reality. If you are a pulmonological toxicologist, every disease starts in the lung.
  • Moderately important
    user-107268
    Source of research funding may moderately influence the credibility of scientific research as the source of research funds are cited and researchers would get additional funds for further research projects in line with previous research funds organisations’ goals and objectives 
  • Very important
    user-143325
    NIH is always considered the highest with respect to credibility.  Thus if NIH funding is reduced (at all), our country will suffer a huge loss and will no longer be at the top of scientific advancement.
  • Slightly important
    user-104740
    Perhaps. Private funding through pharmaceutical companies can be considered unethical. 
  • Extremely important
    user-266767
    Potential serious effect on research objectivity and integrity :Funders may subtly or directly shape what topics are investigated, how they are studied, and what hypotheses are tested.
  • Moderately important
    user-653570
    Indusry funding might influence how or if studies are published or buried 
  • Very important
    user-231028
    Some researchers credible ideas that could solve societal problem but they lack the financial capacity to conduct the study or published those ones that are ready available 
  • Moderately important
    user-36916
    The funders often set the research agenda.
  • Very important
    user-916060
    The finder always decides what to find and can also influence the direction, and even the outcome of research in some cases 
  • Very important
    user-863938
     The source of funding can have a significant influence on how research is perceived, especially when there's a potential conflict of interest. For example, studies funded by industries with a stake in the outcome—like pharmaceutical or energy companies—may raise concerns about bias, even if the science is sound. Transparent disclosure and independent review are crucial, but ultimately, knowing who’s funding the research helps the public and the scientific community assess its credibility more accurately. 
  • Extremely important
    user-265479
    Sufficient funding is critical to good impactiful research
  • Slightly important
    user-510547
    In my industry (Semiconductors, Nanotechnology) scientific studies are verifiable 
  • Extremely important
    user-67856
    No Funding No invention No development  
  • Very important
    user-99098
    Funding from sources that want a particular answer for a scientific problem will influence the results.
  • Extremely important
    user-293503
    Federally funded research has the highest reputation.
  • Extremely important
    user-14529
    Funding sources shape not only the research agenda but also the perceived objectivity of results. Without transparent and impartial funding mechanisms, public trust and scientific rigor can be compromised, especially in controversial or commercially sensitive domains. 
  • Extremely important
    user-236457
    no way to hire a capable individual to work on the project without funding.
  • Very important
    user-625643
    I am very sceptical of work funded by wealthy individuals, and also sceptical of work funded by non-democratic governments (such as it is).
  • Moderately important
    user-237452
     The source of funding can impact research credibility—public or academic sources tend to enhance trust, while industry funding may raise concerns about bias. Transparency and rigorous peer review are key to maintaining integrity.
  • Very important
    user-26509
    However that is changing. Government funding is less reputable.
  • Very important
    user-952693
    Any data that can potentially be used in applied or basic research requires a minimum of inputs, perhaps some more and some less, but the viability and validation of the simplest research can be used in large areas of knowledge. Restricting these protocols limits the scientific chain as a whole.
  • Moderately important
    user-72077
    Limited dissemination of null or negative results and publication/productivity pressure placed on researchers across STEM fields has created a system that prioritizes positive and significant findings. Researchers funded by for-profit companies may feel additional pressure to suppress results that will not generate profits.
  • Very important
    user-573537
    As I said above, traditionally government based funds in the "free world" have had strong credibility and trust. Private funding, on the other side, naturally seeks the applicability and commercialization of knowledge generated by research
  • Very important
    user-498299
    Credibility is harmed when the funding source benefits from a biased study (e.g., smoking and lung cancer studies from tobacco industries)
  • Moderately important
    user-735461
    It depends on the interest of the researchers as well
  • Moderately important
    user-531294
    for bias and amount 
  • Extremely important
    user-47858
    Government-funded research supports government-friendly conclusions.
  • Extremely important
    user-271581
    Could promote a bias in the obtained results
Previous Result Next Result

Debate
(0 Comments)

Please log in to comment.