Reducing unnecessary chemical exposures, particularly pesticides and other petrochemicals, shows promise for reducing illness episodes in the chemically sensitive. Because similar types of exposures have been associated with the onset of chemical sensitivity, such precautions could have wider preventive value for the rest of society as well. Many uses of chemicals have dubious social benefits, and reduced use should be achievable. The chemical industry will likely bitterly contest the reduced use of chemicals because it stands to lose substantial sales. Compensation and liability insurance carriers also stand to lose if the environment is found problematic, rather than individual psychology, for example. Professionals should also recognize conflicts of interest for the chemical and insurance industries by openly acknowledging funding sources for research. The author believes that research on chemical sensitivity that blames the psyche of the victim rather than the chemical will more likely be funded by the insurance or chemical industry than will other research. Study designs should be developed in an atmosphere removed from financial conflicts of interest. This means a substantially larger role for government funding of research on chemical sensitivity to avoid biasing the knowledge base by financially interested parties. The time is critical for government funding of research on chemical sensitivity because the illness is being defined and characterized. If preliminary research is flawed by improper design and focus, our understanding of the problem could be delayed for years.