The article from The Scientist that I posted included this bit:
[quote]THE NUMBERS - INDUSTRY FUNDING ON THE RISE
• Industry funding increased during the 1990s, and in 2001 rose above 50% of the total funding pie, according to a study earlier this year in the British Medical Journal (BMJ, 332:1061-4, May 6, 2006). This compares to the years between 1993 and 1997, when industry funding fluctuated between 20% and 30% of total funding.
• Industry funding in randomized controlled trials increased during the 1990s. Of 32 frequently cited trials published after 1999, 31 received some industry funding, 18 exclusively so, according to the BMJ study[/i]
This would seem to indicate, based on my reading, that about half of the "frequently cited" trials received their funding exclusively from industry. I would guess that there were a number of factors behind this - restrictions on government funding possibly being one of them. As the article notes, about 40% of applications are noted as being 'worthy of funding' while only about 10-20% receive such funding. I would expect this has as much to do with financian constraints to a much larger extent than it would to ideological ones. I would also expect that, having been rejected for government funding, those researchers would go 'shopping for funding'. It would be reasonable to assume that those that were deemed 'worthy of funding' would have a leg-up on the remaining 60%, but that doesn't meant the rest don't get funded, either.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.