The idea that money always taints needs to be driven out of the heads of those promoting "ethics". Since a very large portion of medical research is financed by private companies, most researchers have had some contact. Those who have purposely avoided contact often do so because of their own ideological biases.

The drug companies are not Mother Teresa, but they do more good than her regardles of the purity of their motives. I cringe when I hear the same "ethically pure" scientists quoted over and over again suggesting that all company financed research is aimed at creating new Viagras or slight variations of existing medications. Certainly drug companies do such research, but it takes a very large set of ideological blinders to see that as the main characteristic of pharmaceutical research!

It is bad journalism to limit discussion to those with ideological biases, and that is the direct, and highly unethical effect of using this type of ethical litmus test.

Very well stated. I am pursuing a PhD, and while none of my research is funded by corporate $, I know many researchers who are. It is most common that they are sought out by industry because they have done good work independently. All of the ones that I know remain ethical in their research and reporting of findings and will quickly tell drug companies when lots of money is being spent on bad products.

As you stated, most of those who have no affiliation with any for-profit have done so for ideological reasons and thus have their own bias. Since when did not-for-profit become synonomous with no-hidden-agenda? Indeed, although I'm skeptical of both, I have more confidence in companies who have a financial interest in success (where ever it comes from) than in non-profits that have a financial interest in convincing people they are the only credible source of information.

It is certainly true that just because someone takes money that they are not automatically wrong. However, when you have a case, like the show mentioned here, that has numerous factual errors (see the earlier posting), and does not present both sides it is natural to ponder the reasons for this - It could be just that the hosts and guests are misinformed. But when one finds out that the hosts, the guests, and the show itself are funded by the industry they are defending, and it is not mentioned during the show, I don't think you can fault people for suspecting a link between the funding and the bias. As someone who has not made up their mind about the link between suicide and SSRIs, I would never say that there is no evidence that there is a link - it is way more complicated and lets face it: the hosts and the guests know this.

It seemed to me the principal argument in the article was that the financial connections of the participants, and perhaps the programs themselves, should be disclosed.

I don't think that's the same thing as saying that a financial association is automatically disqualifying.

The issue is hiding the financial connection.