centeroКонтуры глобальных трансформаций: политика, экономика, правоOutlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law2542-02402587-9324Center for Crisis Society Studies10.31249/kgt/2023.05.03centero-1507Research ArticleСфера науки и высшего образованияScience and Higher EducationРоль ажиотажа в коммуникации науки и обществаHype in the Communication of Science and Societyhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5007-7626ГребенщиковаЕ. Г.GrebenshchikovaE. G.

Елена Георгиевна ГРЕБЕНЩИКОВА, доктор философских наук, заместитель директора по научной работе

Нахимовский проспект, д. 51/21, г. Москва, 117418

Elena G. GREBENSHCHIKOVA, Dr. Sc. (Philosophy), Deputy Director

Nakhimovsky Avenue, 51/21, Moscow, 117418

aika45@yandex.ruИнститут научной информации по общественным наукам РАН (ИНИОН РАН)РоссияInstitute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAN)Russian Federation2023111220241654053Copyright © Гребенщикова Е.Г., 20252025Гребенщикова Е.Г.Grebenshchikova E.G.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.ogt-journal.com/jour/article/view/1507

В статье рассматривается проблема ажиотажа в современной науке, раскрываются его источники и влияние на процессы производства знания. Подрывая доверие, ажиотаж может оказать негативное воздействие на социальное восприятие науки, на выбор приоритетов исследований, что ведет к неравномерному финансированию, на оценку неспециалистами рисков и пользы новых технологий. В то же время ажиотаж инициирует включение общества в обсуждение альтернативных видений развития инноваций, помогает мобилизовать научное сообщество и необходимые ресурсы для решения перспективных задач технонауки. Особое внимание автором уделяется роли биомедицинской науки, с которой связывается множество ожиданий как в области лечения заболеваний, так и улучшения качества жизни и ее продолжительности. Авторский подход к рассматриваемой проблеме, отталкиваясь от признания ажиотажа неотъемлемой частью современной науки, фокусируется на способах предупреждения его негативных эффектов. Подобные усилия могут быть направлены как на ученых, особенно молодых, СМИ и пиар-отделы научных учреждений, так и на работу с обществом. Последнее предполагает учет уже накопленного опыта вовлечения неспециалистов в научные дискуссии в рамках различных инициатив по популяризации науки, преодолению «дефицита знаний» неспециалистов и диалогу «наука и общество».

The article considers hype in modern science, reveals its sources and its impact on knowledge production. Undermining trust, hype can have a negative impact on the social perception of science, on the choice of research priorities, which leads to uneven funding, on the assessment of risks and benefits of new technologies by non-specialists. At the same time, hype initiates the society inclusion in the discussion of the alternative visions of innovation development, helps to mobilize the scientific community and the necessary resources to solve promising issues of technoscience. Particular attention is paid to biomedical science, with which there are many expectations both in the field of disease treatment and improvement of the quality of life and its duration. The author's approach to this problem, based on the recognition of hype as an integral part of modern science, focuses on the ways to prevent its negative effects. Such efforts can be directed both at scientists, especially young ones, mass media and PR-departments of the academic institutions, and at work with the society. The latter implies taking into account the already accumulated experience of the non-specialists involved in scientific discussions within the framework of various initiatives to popularize science, to overcome the «knowledge deficit» of non-specialists and the «science and society» dialogue.

ажиотажгенохайпкоммуникация между наукой и обществомвовлечение общества в наукумедиализация наукипопуляризация наукидоверие наукеэтика наукиhypegenotypecommunication between science and societypublic engagement with sciencemedialization of sciencepopularization of sciencetrust in scienceethics of scienceReferencesЮдин Б.Г. От этической экспертизы к экспертизе гуманитарной // Знание. Понимание. Умение. – 2005. – № 2. – С. 126–135.Bhatta A., Misra K.D. (2016). Biotechnology communication needs a rethink. Current Science. Vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 573–578.Юдин Б.Г. Технонаука, человек, общество: актуальность гуманитарной экспертизы // Век глобализации. – 2008. – № 2. – С. 146–155.Boddington P: (2006). Commentary 1. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: hype and hope. Communications Medicine. Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 93–94.Bhatta A., Misra K.D. Biotechnology communication needs a rethink // Current science. – 2016. – Vol. 110, N 4. – P. 573– 578.Bubela T. (2006). Science communication in transition: genomics hype, public engagement, education and commercialization pressures. Clinical Genetics. Vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 445–450.Boddington P: Commentary 1. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: hype and hope // Communications Medicine. – 2006. – Vol. 3, N 1. – P. 93–94.Bucchi M., Trench B. (2016). Science communication and science in society: A conceptual review in ten keywords. Tecnoscienza: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies. Vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 151–168.Bubela T. Science communication in transition: genomics hype, public engagement, education and commercialization pressures // Clinical Genetics. – 2006. – Vol. 70, N 5. – P. 445–450.Caulfield T. (2010). Stem cell research and economic promises. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 303–313.Bucchi M., Trench B. Science communication and science in society: A conceptual review in ten keywords // Tecnoscienza: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies. – 2016. – Vol. 7, N 2. – P. 151–168.Caulfield T. (2018). Spinning the genome: why science hype matters. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 560–571.Caulfield T. Spinning the genome: why science hype matters // Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. – 2018. – Vol. 61, N 4. – P. 560–571.Caulfield T., Condit C. (2012). Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics. Vol. 15, no. 3–4, pp. 209–217.Caulfield T., Condit C. Science and the sources of hype // Public Health Genomics. – 2012. – Vol. 15, N 3–4. – P. 209–217.Holtzman N.A. (1999). Are genetic tests adequately regulated? Science. Vol. 286, no. 5439, p. 409.Caulfield T. Stem cell research and economic promises // Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. – 2010. – Vol. 38, N 2. – P. 303–313.MacGregor C., Petersen A., Parker C. (2018). Hyping the market for ‘anti-ageing’in the news: From medical failure to success in self-transformation. BioSocieties. Vol. 13, pp. 64–80.Holtzman N.A. Are genetic tests adequately regulated? // Science. – 1999. – Vol. 286, N 5439. – P. 409.Marcon A.R., Bieber M., Caulfield T. (2018). Representing a “revolution”: how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine. Genetics in Medicine. Vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 950–956.MacGregor C., Petersen A., Parker C. Hyping the market for ‘anti-ageing’in the news: From medical failure to success in self-transformation // BioSocieties. – 2018. – Vol. 13. – P. 64–80.Nerlich B., Dingwall R., Clarke D.D. (2002). The book of life: How the completion of the Human Genome Project was revealed to the public. Health. Vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 445–469.Marcon A.R., Bieber M., Caulfield T. Representing a “revolution”: how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine // Genetics in Medicine. – 2018. – Vol. 20, N 9. – P. 950–956.Palacios-Berraquero C., Mueck L., Persaud D.M. (2019). Instead of ’supremacy’use’ quantum advantage’. Nature. Vol. 576, no. 7786, pp. 213–214.Nerlich B., Dingwall R., Clarke D.D. The book of life: How the completion of the Human Genome Project was revealed to the public // Health. – 2002. – Vol. 6, N 4. – P. 445–469.Press releases… (2009). Woloshin S. et al. Press releases by academic medical centers: not so academic? Annals of Internal Medicine. Vol. 150, no. 9, pp. 613–618.Palacios-Berraquero C., Mueck L., Persaud D.M. Instead of ’supremacy’use’ quantum advantage’ // Nature. – 2019. – Vol. 576, N 7786. – P. 213–214.Quantum… (2019). Arute F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature. Vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505–510.Press releases by academic medical centers: not so academic? / Woloshin S. [et al.] // Annals of Internal Medicine. – 2009. – Vol. 150, N 9. – P. 613–618.Retracted article… (2014). Obokata H. et al. Retracted article: Bidirectional developmental potential in reprogrammed cells with acquired pluripotency. Nature. Vol. 505, no. 7485, pp. 676–680.Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor / Arute F. [et al.] // Nature. – 2019. – Vol. 574, N. 7779. – P. 505–510.Roberson T.M. (2020). Can hype be a force for good?: Inviting unexpected engagement with science and technology futures. Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 544–552.Retracted article: Bidirectional developmental potential in reprogrammed cells with acquired pluripotency / Obokata H. [et al.] // Nature. – 2014. – Vol. 505, N 7485. – P. 676–680.Stem Cell… (2017). Petersen A. et al. Stem Cell Tourism in Context. In: Stem Cell Tourism and the Political Economy of Hope. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–29.Roberson T.M. Can hype be a force for good?: Inviting unexpected engagement with science and technology futures // Public Understanding of Science. – 2020. – Vol. 29, N 5. – P. 544–552.Tutton R. (2011). Promising pessimism: Reading the futures to be avoided in biotech. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 411–429.Stem Cell Tourism in Context / Petersen A. et al. // Stem Cell Tourism and the Political Economy of Hope. – London : Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. – P. 1–29.Weingart P. (2017). Is there a hype problem in science? If so, how is it addressed. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Pp. 111–118.Tutton R. Promising pessimism: Reading the futures to be avoided in biotech // Social Studies of Science. – 2011. – Vol. 41, N 3. – P. 411–429.Yudin B.G. (2005). From ethical expertise to humanitarian expertise. Knowledge. Understanding. Skill. No. 2, pp. 126–135 (in Russian).Weingart P. Is there a hype problem in science? If so, how is it addressed // The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. – 2017. – P. 111–118.Yudin B.G. (2008) Technoscience, man, society: the relevance of humanitarian expertise. Century of Globalization. No. 2, pp. 146–155 (in Russian).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.