Absolutely, there is always a chance that your hypothesis is wrong and the results of the study/experiment wholly other than that which was expected.<quoted text>When you study the effects - you are conducting hypothesis testing. Which leaves the possibilities open for no effect. Its part of the statistical process.
In my experience, and I have secured a few grants in my lifetime, granting is usually more linked to a need to get rid of the money to legitimize a budget, than anything else. Thats more an argument for smaller government than an argument for bias and predisposition.
I'm discussing the securing of funding. Research dollars from private business is most likely to go to those proposals where the expected results are expected to support the business goals.
Government research dollars are more likely to go to proposals where the expected results support political goals.
At the present time, there is a lot of political pressure to find a simple, direct and demonstrable link (something that a politician can sum up in a sound bite) between carbon output and global warming. And that is where the money is most likely to be spent.