Science has always been funded by money. Researchers need to eat, and they often have to pay their assistants (although grad students typically make less than bloggers) and buy equipment and all that.

But sometimes the source of funding determines what a researcher will conclude in his work. Often, it’s hard or impossible to know. Such is the case with today’s AP story about Virginia’s state climatologist, Pat Michaels, who happens to disagree with mainstream scientists on global warming and who happens to be funded by an industry that appreciates his dissenting voice.

Maybe Michaels is totally on the up-and-up, but the industry would certainly be better served by seeking out and promoting the work of researchers funded by more neutral sources.

In the world of medical research, studies funded by drug companies that reflect favorably on their own products are often similarly suspect, and good journalist are thoughtful about deciding whether to even write about such studies. When they do, the funding source gets, ideally, prominent mention in the story.

Look for Michaels’ work to be marginalized simply because of the clear conflict of interest, whether or not that conflict has anything to do with the validity of his findings. What would be really cool is for supporters of environmental causes to fund Michaels, then his work might be received and judged by scientists and journalists just like any other research—on its merits.