A survey by the Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists found that the corruption of science by commercial interests was widespread. A third of scientists working for Government quangos or newly-privatised laboratories admitted that they had been asked to adjust their research conclusions to suit their funder. 17% of these said that the adjustment had been requested to suit the funder’s preferred outcome, 10% to win further contracts, and 3% to discourage publication of the research findings. The editor of the British Medical Journal, Richard Smith, gave two examples of suspicious research:

• Research into alleged blood clotting by third generation oral contraceptives found no evidence of risk when funded by pharmaceutical companies but such evidence when funded by other sources

• Research into the risks of passive smoking tended to find no risk when funded by the tobacco industry

The British Medical Journal now insists that authors of research papers declare their source(s) of funding and whether they have any competing interests.