Who funds science and its publication? Does it matter?

In recent times, there have been seismic disclosures or revelations that renowned institutions and individuals with hitherto impeccable reputations have received research funds from persons of dubious, if not proven, criminal character. This has led to quiet or not-so-quiet removals, suspensions, and the opening up of investigations into alleged misdeeds. There is a swathe of grey in this finger-pointing game, i.e., guilt by association. A scientist may knowingly or unknowingly accept funds from individuals of dubious reputation, but his/her science is impeccable. How should such science be viewed? Through a jaundiced lens? Would it therefore help if all science, regardless of source of funding, had all its data publicly available, so that a potential verdict of 'guilty by association' could be quashed? In recent years, with the curtailment of government funding for research in many parts of the world, there has also been a need to seek funds from outside government and to tap into private foundations or industry. How might such a shift impact the quality and integrity of science? Is all government-funded/promoted science kosher, while privately-funded research is not? A look back into the past at the infamous Lysenko affair would say otherwise. Furthermore, examples of government-run or -funded trials of drugs and vaccines on unsuspecting members of the 'lower' strata of society or in undeveloped countries are also scattered through history (Jones 1993; Wade 2026). Private industries also have many skeletons in their closet, as evidenced most famously by the suppression of the health effects of tobacco (Grüning et al. 2006), or of pesticides (Baker and Manwell 1988; Martin 2012), or of the ecosystem impacts of genetically modified crops when deployed in inappropriate contexts (Poppy 2000). This therefore implies that neither state- nor private-funded science is potentially free of blemish. Conflict of interest (COI) with the scientific funders is another much misunderstood concept, and the avoidance of COI, whether financial or non-financial in nature (McCartney et al. 2022; Wiersma et al. 2025), needs to be stringently operationalized so that conflicts are not just managed but avoided (McCartney 2025; van Tulleken 2025). In this context, there is also concern about paid Open Access (OA) papers funded by the funders of science (Or 2025); if the scientists are embroiled in a COI, then having much more readership of the results due to OA publication further compromises the equal dissemination of science and the possible spread of misinformation. All of the issues mentioned above are not new, but nevertheless of considerable concern. That many of these concerns need to be operationalized led the International Science Council (ISC) to put out a position paper on Research Funding Transparency in October 2025 (https://council.science/statements/isc-position-on-research-funding-transparency/). The ISC is a conglomeration of the Science Academies of nations throughout the world, of Scientific Unions, e.g., the International Union of Biological Sciences, and National Research Councils. The ISC seeks to serve as the global voice for science and to promote the position that science is a global public good. The ISC position paper calls for the declaration of all funding that contributed to the research, whether from government, industry, philanthropic institutions, individuals, or any other source. While it is impossible to police these declarations, the move toward making them mandatory, and treating them with the seriousness they deserve, may provide an opportunity for greater accountability. For example, just as PubPeer and Retraction Watch serve to point out inconsistencies or errors in data, perhaps a Funding Watch may serve to point out omissions in funding declarations, and related infractions, that could compromise the integrity of the data. Science is only as good as its review by peers, who need all the facts, including who has funded the science, to evaluate its impartiality and identify potential biases in data collection and analysis (Feldman et al. 2018). How is then one to deal with what may be called the 'Dark Funders', i.e., defence departments around the world that fund all manner of science that relates to ballistics, missiles, chemical warfare, biological warfare, cyber warfare, as well as the development of antidotes to potential poisons. Such research is never published, is necessarily (?) classified, and yet may harm or save lives. Defence departments are typically funded by governments with taxpayers' money, although non-state actors also exist in this sector. Does the public not deserve to know? These are very grey areas with shape-shifting outlines. These problems are equivalent to the complexity of a tesseract. Yet, the scientific edifice is only as sound as the integrity of its practitioners. Declaring funding sources and conflicts of interest are essential to this endeavour.