Oppenheimer argued that the alleged sugar conspiracy was nothing but science as usual.
They just produced more of it, and spread it more widely, because of the extra funding industry provided.
Individual scientists were not corrupted, but nonetheless the process was corrupted, leading to thousands of deaths.
Representatives of industry are far more sophisticated, using subtle techniques that can shift scientific consensus and which are much more difficult to detect.
Even more pernicious is when industrial and political groups shape the body of evidence that is produced and published.
This diversity of practice can mean that some research groups, by virtue of the methods they have adopted, are more likely to generate industry-friendly results.
Industry can then select for funding only the scientists who are already likely to produce the favorable results.
In a 2016 article, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, documented a surprising link between the sugar industry and research on fat.
They showed that during the 1960s, the Sugar Research Foundation, an industry-sponsored organization, had paid for a group of doctors at Harvard University to write a literature review that downplayed the risks of sugar in heart disease and emphasized the risks of fat.
The sugar industry offers another version of the same problem.
As we saw, Big Sugar contacted and funded researchers who were already convinced of the dangers of fat, but not sugar.