First, The Guardian uses statements from a no-name group "US Right-To-Know" instead of doing fact-finding themselves. Fact-finding is what good journalism is all about.

Second, it is quite bold to assume that any academic who produced a joint industrial-academic report is corrupt. Setting aside the borderline irresponsible generalisation, many universities set strict conditions for such cooperation. The most prominent is a condition not to be paid or remunerated in any other way for the joint work. The Guardian did not even try to check if any remuneration took place.

This makes it impossible for me to form an opinion about the article contents.