"This is not a particularly unique position," he says. "The trick becomes balancing multiple sources of money to ensure objectivity in the work.

The Washington Post, at least, seems to think the HCRA has had trouble striking that balance.

In an April 12 story on a government study on the chemical dioxin that is potentially damaging to chemical and agricultural interests, the Post referred to the HCRA as "industry-backed."

Graham sits on a government advisory panel that reviewed the study. The panel issued a statement that called into doubt some of the most explosive findings, including the possible link between exposure to dioxin and cancer.

"The Post's characterization of the center is imprecise," Ropeik says.

The HCRA's funding and Graham's work has also been called into question by a report published by Public Citizen.

Although the incident with the Post occurred after the report's release-and involved parties say the two incidents are unrelated-both are revealing of the fundamental disagreements between Graham and his critics.