The scientist who proved that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer was
subsequently paid by Monsanto and other chemical companies for 20
years, even being paid by them to investigate a specific chemical;
he
concluded that vinyl chloride did not cause cancer, a conclusion that
was subsequently rejected.
Was his conclusion influenced by his conflict
of interest?
It is true that, when that was published, there was no rule about
stating conflicts of interest. The rule was made in response to
awareness that conflicts of interest such as these were undermining
the integrity of research.
If the scientist did give all consulting fees to an academic
organization that he founded, that doesn't mean he wasn't avid for
more fees to make the organization bigger, or that he could not
possibly have biased his research to get them.
Biasing research does not always mean lying. There are more subtle
ways that involve fooling oneself. If he was convinced that the main
causes of cancer were things that the victim had consumed, that too
could have been a motive for bias in the same direction.
Wikipedia's article on vinyl chloride, as of 23 Feb 2017, footnotes
a printed article from the Houston Chronicle that says
chemical companies
tried to manipulate research about the medical effects of vinyl chloride.
When companies do this, they typically try many avenues of influence.