Abandoned Oil Rigs Have been found to make great fish habitats

Milton Love is a marine scientist who has a unique way of counting fish, and thus assessing the marine environment. He goes down beneath abandoned oil rigs off the coast of California and counts fish. This is interesting because in this case, the findings of the scientist may actually help the case of the oil companies involved, and in fact directly save them money. Dr. Love is sponsored by, and his research supports California's Rigs-to-Reefs program where by oil companies may pay half the cost of dismantling an abandoned oil rig to the state, and then the state will monitor the reef as an "artificial reef". Many species that are otherwise endangered are found living and nesting on and beneath the rigs because it is difficult for commercial fisherman to approach the rigs and put down nets.
Thus, in order to protect endangered species, the state and the oil companies involved have been able to come to a somewhat unique agreement.
The program is not without it's skeptics though, many scientists feel that research funded by oil companies is not objective.
In this case, as in all cases, scientific objectivity can be difficult to define and assess.
In this case, Dr. Love controls all of the data being produced about the abandoned wells. Does that make his work lack objectivity.
The critical environmentalists themselves do not seem to be critical of Dr. Loves observations and data.
In short, this is a scientific and environmental problem in which professional jealousy seems to be intertwined with scientific objectivity. What type of objective experiments or observational procedures could be implemented that would enhance Dr. Love's work's perceived objectivity?