Skip to main content

Timothy Caulfield is a Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, University of Alberta, a Trudeau Fellow and author of Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?

Scientific revolutions are everywhere. There is the stem cell revolution, the microbiome revolution, the nanotech revolution, the genomic revolution, and the personalized medicine revolution, to name just a few. Even mindfulness is, apparently, a revolution that will transform our lives! From these revolutionizing areas of science flows a constant stream of studies that are represented – by researchers, universities and the media – as breakthroughs, paradigm shifters, miracles and even near-future cures.

While the rhetoric of revolution is everywhere, the promised revolutionary breakthroughs rarely seem to materialize. It's like the science communication process has adopted Hollywood movie trailer tactics ("In a world where stem cells miracles happen almost daily…"), but the movie never opens.

Story continues below advertisement

The problem of science hype – that is, the inappropriate exaggeration of the state of scientific knowledge or the potential benefits of research – is receiving more attention from both policymakers and the academic community. Guidelines released today from the International Society for Stem Cell Research (which I was involved in writing) tackle this issue head on, suggesting researchers have an obligation to represent science in a balanced manner. Moreover, it states researchers should strive to correct the public record – by using tools like social media – if they feel research has been misrepresented.

Fighting science hype won't be easy. It is a complex phenomenon involving the action of researchers, research institutions, academic journals, funding entities, patient advocacy groups, social media, industry partners, market forces and the popular press. It is a hype pipeline, with each actor in the process benefiting from the injection of a bit more spin.

Studies have found, for example, that articles in peer-reviewed journals are using increasingly hyperbolic language and that abstracts (the summaries written by the researchers) often contain exaggeration and spin. Overstatement can also be found in the information flowing from university press offices. One analysis of almost 500 press releases found that half had a degree of exaggerating spin.

Of course, the media also plays a role. Research we did at the Health Law Institute found that news articles about stem-cell research often contained unrealistic estimations about how quickly research would end up in the clinic.

Why is science hype an issue? Overly enthusiastic representations can mislead the public about the readiness of a technology for clinical application, thus generating unrealistic expectations. Hype can skew research funding and lead to misinformed policy debates. And it can have an impact on clinical decision-making. It may also facilitate the marketing of unproven therapies – a particularly significant problem for stem cell research.

And let's be clear, big science topics like stem cell research are not the only areas with a hype problem. The social forces that spin how research is represented touch almost every realm of science. Even the research used to support mindfulness is, according to recent research, exaggerated in a way that presents the field in a more positive light.

It is understandable and natural for researchers to be excited about their work. And enthusiasm can help attract funding and build the interdisciplinary communities necessary for significant scientific advances. Also, we must recognize that much of the hype probably does not emerge from conscious decisions. It is the result of systemic pressures and incentive structures that encourage and reward enthusiastic portrayals. The invisible hand of hype.

Story continues below advertisement

While the revolution rhetoric may help grab headlines, funding support and market share, in the long term we all benefit from accurate representations of science. Fighting science hype should be viewed as a norm associated with scientific integrity. It won't be easy to slow the flow of hype. But given the importance of good, trustworthy depictions of science, any step in the right direction is a step worth taking.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter