I guess we'd have to see what they mean by 'negative.' Nature is hardly neutral so anything related to funding and publishing will engender some skepticism about them. Witness one of the kookier science bloggers saying that a respected Nature journalist is a 'toadie' for asking if PLoS One is much good, given their pliable funding model (yet then glossing over their own marketing agreement with PLoS for free advertising, which was, apparently, irrelevant, since only other writers are in the bag) - so it has to go the other way too.

I wouldn't bother to publish results of failed experiments. I assume the vast bulk of experiments are failures in every science and they don't all get published. 3M and DuPont don't publish failures.

I know of a nutrition study review that said studies funded by industry were four to eight times as likely to reach conclusions 'in the financial interests' of sponsors.

But it defies belief that scientists getting corporate funding are on the take yet scientists getting government funding are ethically pristine. It mostly depends on what you want to believe.