Presently, public funds are more and more rare, and often industries offer funds to perform restricted research.
See Mr Bonnet here two things we have to understand 1. as an academician we always think about the novelty (ideology) this may some time fruit full in terms of money and fame but many a number it is not, because u can see people (researchers) having number of patents but not no product in the market 2. as a researcher u require some investment for ur work and as my idea concern industrial people when they are investing money they will check the application of ur research for market so that they will get money. so my final conclusion is research with out any use to public or society is useless. So i advice u to go ahead if u have chance
thanks
I totally agree with Ravi, both (funds and researcher) complete each others !!
To some extent such funding may restrict researchers and sometimes even make them go against their principle of remaining objective: e.g. if they are told to prove that something - e.g. a firm's product or marketing strategy - is better than their competitors' products etc. if this is not true. The same sometimes applies for ministry funding: if researchers are told to prove that their policy, law... is good if it is not. Also a lot depends on what you are allowed to publish afterwards in academic journals.
The simple answer is "yes". A more nuanced answer is "often, but not always".
I believe the donors might TRY to influence the results or the outcome of the research, but this should not happen and should not be allowed through the rigorous - as we have the academic integrity at stake here - and hey, is not research enriched by the funds being received from industry or government, otherwise no research can be done.
Thus, these conditions, and agreements should be reached at while working on the memorandum of understanding or the agreement. Also, the ethics approval might assist in reducing the impact through the conditions placed on their ethics approval.
Regards
Theodora Issa