Hype in the Communication of Science and Society
https://doi.org/10.31249/kgt/2023.05.03
Abstract
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.
About the Author
E. G. Grebenshchikova
Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAN)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena G. GREBENSHCHIKOVA, Dr. Sc. (Philosophy), Deputy Director
Nakhimovsky Avenue, 51/21, Moscow, 117418
References
1. Bhatta A., Misra K.D. (2016). Biotechnology communication needs a rethink. Current Science. Vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 573–578.
2. Boddington P: (2006). Commentary 1. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: hype and hope. Communications Medicine. Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 93–94.
3. Bubela T. (2006). Science communication in transition: genomics hype, public engagement, education and commercialization pressures. Clinical Genetics. Vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 445–450.
4. 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.
5. Caulfield T. (2010). Stem cell research and economic promises. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 303–313.
6. Caulfield T. (2018). Spinning the genome: why science hype matters. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 560–571.
7. Caulfield T., Condit C. (2012). Science and the sources of hype. Public Health Genomics. Vol. 15, no. 3–4, pp. 209–217.
8. Holtzman N.A. (1999). Are genetic tests adequately regulated? Science. Vol. 286, no. 5439, p. 409.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Palacios-Berraquero C., Mueck L., Persaud D.M. (2019). Instead of ’supremacy’use’ quantum advantage’. Nature. Vol. 576, no. 7786, pp. 213–214.
13. 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.
14. Quantum… (2019). Arute F. et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature. Vol. 574, no. 7779, pp. 505–510.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Tutton R. (2011). Promising pessimism: Reading the futures to be avoided in biotech. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 411–429.
19. 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.
20. Yudin B.G. (2005). From ethical expertise to humanitarian expertise. Knowledge. Understanding. Skill. No. 2, pp. 126–135 (in Russian).
21. Yudin B.G. (2008) Technoscience, man, society: the relevance of humanitarian expertise. Century of Globalization. No. 2, pp. 146–155 (in Russian).
Review
For citations:
Grebenshchikova E.G. Hype in the Communication of Science and Society. Outlines of global transformations: politics, economics, law. 2023;16(5):40-53. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/kgt/2023.05.03
Views:
94
Email this article 