I agree with most of this article. The main criticism I have is this part “The short-term gains of a few corporations must no longer rise above our national interests, our economic competitiveness, and most importantly, our safety, health, and wellbeing”. This comes off as suggesting corporations are inherently anti-scientific, and anti-corporate views are inherently more scientific or valid.
The problem with this view is that while corporations can have reason to distort or misuse science due to profit motives, that’s not always the case. There are many examples of corporations being on the right side of science with opposing viewpoints using the “shill” or “corporation therefore unscientific” argument to promote unscientific positions. Genetic engineering and GMOs are a good example where corporations tend to be more scientific than anti-GMO side. Airlines tend to be on the side of science compared to anti-corporate views over “chem trails”, with the main argument being they are corporations therefore can’t be trusted.
While profit motives and conflict of interest are reasons to give extra scrutiny to science coming from corporations, it’s equally important to not assume science coming from corporations is invalid or science coming anti-corporate sources is valid.