I wonder if it will finally produce some real regulation on the practice (not just toothless disclosure in a footnote requirements) if the insidious influence of using corporate funding for research is seen to have a major negative impact on more than the approval/safety of drugs and medical devices?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128892441&sc=twObviously any testimony as to long-term negative effects of the oil spill on Gulf fisheries and wetlands that BP can muzzle with research contracts including confidentiality clauses until after they've got their final court settlements on damages is going to save them a lot of money--and likely cost the US in exchange in either much delayed remedial efforts or long-term erosion of the income tax base in the area.
I can't help but think any research funded by money that has a horse in the race should be refused journal publication--or standing as expert witness in court testimony. Of course, that then begs the question of where money for pure research and unbiased clinical research is going to come from. OTOH, we might do better with lots fewer new drugs and devices per decade, but ones whose development is driven by real need, not just profit, and that are actually safer or better than their predecessors. That might be better both for the patients and for the cost curve for overall medical care.
In any case, it seems to me US corporate-funded academic research is about as helpful to the world as Chinese-regulated food ingredients.