Institutional support, state bias, MNCs, billionaires, and predetermined knowledge

“predetermined” is too strong unless you have evidence demonstrating that level of control.

Institutional support can come from:

Government

A government might prioritize:

military history, national security, national identity, technological research, etc.

Corporations

A corporation might fund research related to:

energy technology, pharmaceutical development, artificial intelligence, consumer behavior, etc.

Wealthy individuals or foundations

A foundation might prioritize:

poverty, education, climate, democracy, public health, or another subject.

The important point is:

Funding does not necessarily determine the conclusion, but it can influence which questions researchers have greater opportunities to investigate.

For example:

Suppose researchers have ten possible questions:

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.

If major funding exists almost exclusively for A, B and C, then many researchers may rationally move toward A, B and C.

The result can be:

A, B and C become heavily researched, while D–J remain understudied.

That does not prove that the research on A–C is false.

It means the distribution of knowledge may be shaped by the distribution of resources.

To say:

“Knowledge production was predetermined”

would require considerably stronger evidence showing that the funder controlled the research questions, methods, conclusions, or dissemination.