Ethical decision making

As a young university graduate, Cody finds a job working for a scientific research organization studying pollution damage to coral on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. The organization has a problem common to all scientific research: how to get enough funding to carry on the work. All their worries appear to be solved when, quite out of the blue, a large multinational corporation offers significant ongoing financial support. There is a “hitch” however. The company has recently suffered adverse publicity through an article claiming they are responsible for some of the pollution. In return for financial support, the multinational company not only wants the research company to refute these claims, but to study a section of the reef where there are no pollution problems. Cody knows that without the necessary funding, they could not begin to solve the barrier reef’s problems. So is it better to make a short-term compromise and accept the money and the terms in order to carry out work that could benefit the environment for the long term, and that otherwise might not be possible? Efforts to find other sponsors have not been successful. Or is it better to refuse the money and put the research on hold until they find other funding, even at the risk of the reef’s continuing deterioration? What should Cody do? Why?