Why are honeybee colonies collapsing? One hypothesis is that bees are bringing into their hives traces of pesticides called neonicotinoids, whose use has expanded greatly in the past few years. Some scientists believe that these damage the development of the bee larvae, and inhibit the queen's production of eggs. As a result, these pesticides have already been withdrawn from sale in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia.

But there are, as yet, no certain answers, and most people agree that several factors are likely to be involved. So a new study by Warwick University, which hopes to unravel the "complex of interacting factors" should sort it all out. Or so you would imagine, in view of the fact that the researchers have been given £1m to do so by the government's Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

But while the university says it will investigate "parasitic diseases caused by the varroa mite" and the "link between these diseases and the quality of pollen and nectar that the bees are feeding on", there's no mention of pesticides in its press release. When I phoned Dr David Chandler, one of the Warwick researchers leading the study, he confirmed that there is "no pesticide component in it at all."

Odd, you might think. Slightly less odd perhaps, when you see that the award has been granted by the BBSRC "in partnership with Syngenta", which has provided 10% of the project's funding. As Private Eye notes today, Syngenta is the chemicals company that manufactures a neonicotinoid called thiamethoxam, sold as Actara, which has been fingered by a study in Washington state as responsible for incidents of honeybee deaths.

Warwick's press release goes on to promote the company's Operation Pollinator, "a 5-year €1M programme in seven European countries (and the USA) to boost pollinating insects by providing wildflower strips". It looks to me like greenwash. The university also describes Syngenta as helping to "protect the environment and improve health and quality of life" - which seems like an unusual way to describe a pesticides company. When I asked Dr Chandler whether there might be a conflict of interest, he told me, "I honestly do not believe that's the case."

The BBSRC no longer publishes the CVs of the committee members who decide how public money should be spent. But in 2003, when this information was available on its website, I found that the committees were stuffed with executives from Syngenta, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Genetix plc, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Celltech and Unilever. The funding decisions it made appeared to reflect their priorities rather than the wider public interest.

The potential for conflicts of interest is likely only to worsen, because in April this year the research councils introduced a new requirement for people seeking grants: from now on they must describe the economic impact of the work they want to conduct. This is likely to drive scientists to work even more closely with corporations.

The big problem with commercial partnerships is not that the corporations might lean on scientists to edit the results (though as Ben Goldacre has shown, this sometimes happens in medical research) it's that they help to set the terms of reference for the research. You would need the self-abnegation of a saint not to recognise that some research topics are more likely to get funded by certain companies than others.

I don't know whether or not Syngenta's involvement has affected the framing of the honeybee topic, but wherever scientists are financially dependent on companies, the question arises. Given how little money corporations contribute to British science (Syngenta's 10% is about average), wouldn't we be better served by keeping them out of it, so that we can be sure they can't guide the way research is framed? And while we're at it, how about reducing their influence over the way that public money for science is allocated?

monbiot.com