The underlying premise behind this controversy, that "pure" scientists will by definition be more reliable or unbiased than those working for an industry, has no real basis.

"Pure" scientists have axes to grind as much as anyone else does, whether in terms of keeping their grant providers happy, or in terms of their personal politics. Since they don't have an obvious connection to a corporate interest, it's just harder to spot.

The other premise that seems to be operating here is that somehow "pure" scientists are better or more skillful than their commercial counterparts.

It's worth noting that corporations hire scientists who are skilled enough to deliver results that work, and not just write academic papers. They don't go out looking to hire dummies.