Private funding creates its own biases, no doubt, but
publication bias may itself be a threat to science. That's the assertion in the
first story, and one of the implications made by the
second article. Of course, the second article deals with the notion that most of what we observe is noise, and presents ideas that digress into other topics.
Then again, maybe it's the role of someone else in society to sort out what's relevant and what's not; let the researchers do their part and leave the interpretation up to others.