I feel that your criticism is off base. The author of the story was right to focus only on the facts: specifically, the scientist's funding sources and the pattern of behavior that occurred with regards to funding and testimony.
Wisely, the author does not overreach the facts and try to call shenanigans on the science per se. Nor should he, unless he knows of a scientific experiment that has been done demonstrating what you are claiming.
Yes, the implication is that the scientist is not to be trusted and that, by connection, his work should not be. But that is intentionally left to the reader to conclude. It allows for the possibility that the scientist does questionable science but that his conclusions might be proven correct by others, even. This is very good investigative scientific journalism.
That pattern of behavior is treated unfairly, though. He argued for one theory, did a study, and then published a paper with a very different direction. That's how it's supposed to work. You change your mind as the facts come in. The article treats this as a betrayal.
That is how the pattern is supposed to work (opinion informed by data), I agree. However, credibility can be called into question by the appearance of impropriety. Perhaps one could say that the appearance of impropriety increases the prior likelihood of actual impropriety, but it's not black and white.
This article is serving as a counterbalance to a NYT article that failed to disclose this author's relationship with industry. That is usually a prominent disclosure; I've had to be very clear about my funding in every paper I've submitted, and if it's of high interest to those in the field, one can imagine that the public has an interest in this knowledge as well.
I really felt that this was an article written to draw attention to the scientist's funding, and I don't think it was done badly. When doctors fail to disclose funding in situations like this, they rightly get slammed. This strikes me as no different.
Like I said, it is quite possible that this scientist's conclusions are correct, but it is always important to have independent validation, where independent != funded by the company that benefits from your stated results.
Another important point is that it sounds like the scientist's own company would also benefit extensively from the bee problem being disease rather than pesticides. As you say, this may not invalidate his results but it does mean they probably need further scrutiny.
Yes, the implication is that the scientist is not to be trusted and that, by connection, his work should not be. But that is intentionally left to the reader to conclude....This is very good investigative scientific journalism.
Insinuation being a subset of implication, I have no problem with your preference for a minimally different word choice, but confess that I am surprised that you would go to the effort to actually post that :-)
Wisely, the author does not overreach the facts and try to call shenanigans on the science per se. Nor should he, unless he knows of a scientific experiment that has been done demonstrating what you are claiming.
Yes, the implication is that the scientist is not to be trusted and that, by connection, his work should not be. But that is intentionally left to the reader to conclude. It allows for the possibility that the scientist does questionable science but that his conclusions might be proven correct by others, even. This is very good investigative scientific journalism.