I am one of that 95% so the statements apply to me, I make up my own mind on every issue based upon what the data indicates. If the data indicates something I support that and defend it, if the data changes through new research, then I re-evaluate and update my statements to reflect it.
While I don't directly study GMO's (and I have no interest in doing so) what I work on is used by people who are in that field. I am critical when the data indicates I should be, and not when it doesn't. Funding doesn't have anything to do with it.
If the statements you have made come from that documentary, then I think you should put "facts" like this.
I have not asserted that every scientist is somehow corrupted by their funding sources. However, this documentary shows one particular field that has been very much affected by money and power. It's a documentary, so if you haven't seen it, we could discuss the facts contained within it. However, what you describe is your personal experience with one field, which is obviously your real experiences. I'm not doubting that real science takes place that is corporate funded. We are discussing two different things: your personal experience, and the documentary that explores the lives of many independent scientists.
Well I thank you for at least your edit in clarification of the statement in the post text above. People read things like how it was initially written, generalize and it slowly paints scientists into a corner. 99.5% of scientists are good people who are just interested in understanding how the world works and trying to do things to make peoples lives easier if possible.
That said I do genetically modify organisms in my work, only for the purpose of producing things for me. ;)
As usual, a fraction are bad people is sufficient to categorize an entire field :(