Some of the defenses of the Uber economists scandal are laughably bad for economists to be making. Like people arguing the compensation doesn't have any possible incentive effect, or that there is no risk of bias or malpractice in the analysis.
For the record I don't have an issue with economists being paid to analyze company data. But that should be disclosed in the resulting research, and it should be published in-house or at a peer-reviewed journal. That some of the Uber research didn't disclose the compensation and was published at third party research outlets that don't have formal peer-review is rather troubling.
There's also some publication bias concerns in this process, but that's a harder separate matter for research in general.
The Krueger NBER paper in particular had a disclosure, but it was rather vague to the point of misleading. A later paper of his had a more explicit disclosure that a previous paper of his was commissioned. I still don't like the idea of a place like NBER publishing commissioned research though.