Funding the Truth: Science, Education and the Power of Influence

Who Funds the Facts?

Imagine two scientists working in separate labs. Both wear the same white coat, peer into the same microscope and follow the same method. But one is funded by a pharmaceutical company. The other by a government grant with a national security clause.

Same method. Different motivations. And maybe, eventually, different truths.

We often treat truth like it’s a constant—something to be uncovered, tested, peer-reviewed and published. But the reality is more complex. In an age of algorithmic feeds and billion-dollar research labs, truth isn’t just discovered—it’s designed.

In this article, we’ll follow the money—not just in science, but in education, algorithms and the information we consume daily. We’ll explore how unseen forces decide which truths rise to the surface, how research agendas are shaped before experiments even begin and how the stories we accept as “true” often depend on who paid for them to be told.

This isn’t an attack on facts. It’s an inquiry into the forces behind them.

The Science of Who Pays the Scientists

Science is supposed to be neutral. Objective. Pure.

But scientists don’t live in isolation. They need funding. And funding comes from governments, corporations or powerful institutions—each with its own agenda.

In theory, scientific discovery is driven by curiosity and the pursuit of truth. In practice, it’s often guided by grants, contracts and private interests. A 2022 report by the Swedish research council STINT found that the majority of biomedical and public research funding in the United States comes from federal agencies such as the NIH and NSF, but is increasingly intertwined with private-sector priorities due to partnerships, lobbying and strategic contracting^[1].

The same report notes that political administrations can directly influence funding flows to steer scientific focus toward issues that align with national security, industrial competitiveness or ideological agendas.

In this context, science may be less about uncovering objective facts—and more about serving the priorities of those holding the purse strings.

Darwin, Survival and the Politics of Certainty

Imagine a lecture hall in Victorian England. A quiet man with a thick beard presents an idea that would shake the foundations of religion, politics and science: that all species evolve through natural selection. Charles Darwin’s theory was radical—provocative not just because of what it said, but because of what it implied.

And yet, over time, something curious happened.

Darwin’s theory—once debated, resisted and cautiously adopted—turned into something else: an untouchable truth. It moved from scientific model to cultural orthodoxy. Today, it’s taught in schools and printed in textbooks with an air of finality, rarely accompanied by its historical context, limitations or philosophical assumptions.

So how did this happen?

Because the theory became useful.

By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “survival of the fittest”—a phrase actually coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin—was being used to justify everything from British imperialism to American industrial capitalism^[2]. This wasn’t biology anymore. It was Social Darwinism.

And the story didn’t stop with inequality or industrial monopolies. In early 20th-century Germany, Social Darwinism was weaponized to rationalize conquest, racial violence and eventually, world war.

This video provides an overview of how Darwin’s theory of natural selection was adapted into the concept of Social Darwinism:

Meanwhile, in the U.S., industrial titans like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller openly invoked Darwinian language to justify vast amounts of wealth and power. As Carnegie famously wrote:

But whether the law be benign or not, we must say of it: it is here; we cannot evade it; no substitutes for it have been found; and while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, because it insures the survival of the fittest in every department.^[3]

This version of Darwinism seeped into the language of markets (“creative destruction”), education (“meritocracy”) and tech innovation (“disruption”). And while biological evolution remains well-established scientific framework, the broader cultural myth of evolution-as-inevitability deserves more scrutiny.

Because when a theory becomes too convenient, we should ask:

• Who benefits from this version of truth?
• What other interpretations were dismissed?
• And what happens to those who don’t “fit” the narrative of the fittest?

As historian Richard Hofstadter noted, Social Darwinism was not just a distortion of science—it was a reflection of the values of those in power at the time^[4].

Climate Science and the Battle for Public Perception

Let’s take climate change. It is a scientific reality.

Absolutely, but the way it’s communicated? That’s a political battleground.

In 2021, undercover journalists captured ExxonMobil executives on video admitting to a long-term strategy: publicly supporting climate action while covertly lobbying against it^[5]. Their aim wasn’t to deny global warming—it was to slow regulation and maintain fossil fuel dominance. Internally, the science was never in doubt. But externally, Exxon funded “uncertainty,” paying think tanks and lobbying firms to muddy the public narrative.

A study titled “Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks”, published in 2013^[6], examined 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. The study found that a significant majority of these books were linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Specifically, the research indicated that:​

• 100% of denial books published in the 1980s and 95% in the 1990s were linked to CTTs.
• 65% of those published since 2000 had such links.
• Overall, 72% of the 108 books had connections to CTTs.​

The study also noted that many of these books were authored or edited by individuals without scientific training and that nearly all endorsed a conservative ideology. This highlights the role of conservative think tanks in promoting climate change denial literature.

Artificial Intelligence and Corporate Alignment

Fast forward to one of the most advanced scientific frontiers today: artificial intelligence.

In 2023, a public debate started between Google DeepMind and OpenAI over how to handle the so-called alignment problem—ensuring that advanced AI systems behave ethically and don’t cause unintended harm. On the surface, both companies promoted similar values: transparency, safety, fairness.

But dig a little deeper and the cracks appear.

OpenAI’s “alignment” narrative emphasized open models and public oversight, while Google’s approach leaned toward centralized control and corporate partnerships. Critics noted that each model conveniently aligned with the company’s commercial strategy:

• OpenAI sought widespread adoption through APIs and integrations,
• Google aimed to embed AI into its own ecosystem of products and data services.

Even in the most cutting-edge fields, science is not a neutral playground. As AI becomes a trillion-dollar industry—with governments and militaries pouring billions into its development—the pressure to shape outcomes increases.

A 2020 study by Mohamed Abdalla, covered by “Wired”, examined the financial ties between AI researchers and major technology companies. The study found that 58 percent of tenure-track AI faculty at four prominent universities: Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley and the University of Toronto—had received funding or support from companies such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Facebook.

This highlights the significant influence that industry funding can have on academic research in AI^[7].

So, let’s be clear: Power doesn’t just fund science. It filters it.

It influences which questions get asked, which data is highlighted, which conclusions are welcomed and which are quietly ignored.

That doesn’t mean all science is compromised. But it does mean we should ask not just what the research says—but who paid for it to be said.

Education as an Empire

Just as funding shapes what scientists can explore, political control determines what students are allowed to learn.

Consider this: in one U.S. state, students are taught that the Founding Fathers of the United States were champions of liberty. In another, they learn that many of these men were slave owners whose economic success was built on stolen labour.

Both are true. But which gets taught depends on who controls the curriculum.

A quote attributed to William Butler Yeats:

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire^[8].

And we ask, “But who holds the match”?

In 2022, Florida passed the “Stop WOKE Act”, which restricted how race, gender and history could be taught in public schools. Critical race theory (CRT)—a legal framework used to analyse systemic racism—was labeled “divisive” and banned from classrooms^[9]. Supporters said it protected children from “indoctrination.” Critics argued it was a political campaign to whitewash history.

In Texas, revisions to the social studies standards in 2023 removed references to the Ku Klux Klan, civil rights protests and even “slavery” as a primary cause of the Civil War^[10]. The stated goal was to ensure a more “balanced” presentation of history.

But balanced for whom?

Education is both a mirror and a battleground. It reflects who a society believes it is and who it refuses to admit it has been.

This isn’t just an American phenomenon. It’s a pattern that echoes across continents, languages and political systems.

When Education Leaves the Classroom

In the 21st century, education isn’t confined to classrooms. It’s digitized and increasingly shaped by platforms that weren’t built with pedagogy in mind.

According to a report published by Business Wire, as of 2024, approximately 49% of students worldwide have participated in some form of online learning^[11]. This figure includes various digital platforms, such as Google Classroom, Coursera, Khan Academy and government portals.​

But here’s the deeper layer: these platforms are not ideologically neutral.

Research shows that digital algorithms often prioritize content based on engagement and commercial viability, not necessarily educational value or cultural diversity. For instance, a 2023 review of algorithmic auditing research found that platform algorithms—like YouTube’s—frequently favour dominant, Western-centric content, which can lead to the underrepresentation of local and Indigenous voices in global information flows^[12].

In other words, what students see first is shaped less by balanced curation and more by a platform’s proximity to power—economic, cultural and geopolitical.

• When Google’s algorithm decides which history video appears at the top of search results…
• When an online course quietly omits certain political movements because they’re deemed “too controversial”…
• When a translation app softens activist messages to make them more brand-safe for advertising…

It’s not just education—it’s soft power. As George Orwell wrote in 1984:

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.^[13]

The shift toward digital learning creates a quieter, more sophisticated form of influence.

Truth Is a Moving Target

It’s tempting to assume that if we just “follow the science,” “read the news,” or “trust the experts,” we’ll be safe.

Think of Galileo, condemned by the Church not because his science was wrong—but because it challenged the power structure of his time. Or more recently, how pandemic narratives in 2020 shifted based on political alignment, with competing interpretations of lockdowns, vaccines and data emerging from different governments, media outlets and even scientific boards.

In the digital age, this dynamic accelerates.

Algorithms now filter what we see, shaping the “truths” we encounter. A 2021 study conducted by Mozilla; found that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm was responsible for 71% of the videos that users reported regretting watching^[14]. These “regrettable” videos often included content related to misinformation, violent or graphic material, hate speech and scams. Notably, some of these videos were later removed by YouTube for violating its own policies. ​

Furthermore, research indicated that videos flagged as regrettable received 70% more daily views compared to non-regrettable content, suggesting that the algorithm not only promoted such content but also amplified its reach.

So where does that leave us?

In a world saturated with curated facts, truth becomes less about accuracy and more about authority.

The real question isn’t just “Is this true?”—but “Who says it’s true and who profits if I believe it?”