This is a curious statement from the author, who seems to support the grant receiving members who believe they can be objective, while complaining industry representatives cannot.
That’s been their damned argument for decades. Money from industry taints results in a very bad way.
Money from government goes to pure-as-white-snow saints who don’t have a biased bone in their bodies. Government is infallible and only wants what’s best for its sheeple.
That argument has always been a load of hogwash. And yet, tens of millions of people believe it to be true.
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my oldest daughter who's gone full Communist. We agreed to debate whether global warming was human-caused.
She warned me she wouldn't accept any arguments from the Heartland Institute because it takes donations from the oil industry. I told her "fair enough, but I won't accept any arguments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because it's totally funded by the government industry."
For some reason the debate never happened.
You gotta love (insert sarcasm here) Biesecker's strained describtion of what a Non-Swamp Dwelling member of this committee would look like.