Hype, or simplified and sensationalised science, appears to be inescapable in science communication with examples extending from viral social media accounts and ‘breakthrough’-themed press releases, to the mediated claims of the celebrity scientist. In science communication, the negative effects of hype are familiar. The question is whether hype is always a distortion and a lie, or can it be redeemed? This essay reviews the contribution of hype to science, specifically in terms of encouraging reflexivity for science and technology. I present three perspectives on hype and invite further conversation on the role of hype in science communication.
ApredaRBonaccorsiAFantoniGGabelloniD (2014)
Functions and failures: How to manage technological promises for societal challenges. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management26: 369–384.
3.
AruteFAryaKBabbushRBaconDBardinJCBarendsR, et al. (2019)
Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor.Nature574: 505–510.
4.
BandelliA (2015)
The blurred boundaries between science and activism. Journal of Science Communication14: C01.
5.
BarnettC (2008) Convening public: The parasitical spaces of public action. In: Cox KR, Murray L and Robinson J (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Political Geography. London: SAGE, pp. 403–417.
6.
BoydENykvistBBorgstromSStacewiczIA (2015)
Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resistance. AMBIO44: 149–161.
7.
BrownN (2003)
Hope against hype – Accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies16: 3–21.
8.
BrownNMichaelM (2003)
A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management15: 3–18.
9.
BrownRE (2014) The Public Relations of Everything: The Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern Dramatic History of an Idea.
Abingdon:
Routledge.
10.
CaulfieldTConditC (2012)
Science and the sources of hype.Public Health Genomics15: 209–217.
11.
CaulfieldTRachulCZarzecznyA (2010) ‘
Neurohype’ and the name game: Who’s to blame?AJOB Neuroscience1: 13–15.
12.
ClaridgeC (2014) Hyperbole in English: A Corpus-Based Study of Exaggeration.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
13.
EttenhuberK (2008) Hyperbole: Exceeding similitude. In: Adamson S, Alexander G and Ettenhuber K (eds) Renaissance Figures of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–216.
14.
EvansJPMeslinEMMarteauTMCaulfieldT (2011)
Deflating the genomic bubble. Science331: 861–862.
15.
FujimuraJH (2003) Future imaginaries: Genome scientists as sociocultural entrepreneurs. In: GoodmanAHHeathDLindeeSM (eds) Genetic Nature/Culture.
Los Angeles, CA:
University of California Press, pp. 176–199.
16.
GauchatG (2011)
The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science.Public Understanding of Science20: 751–770.
17.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review 77: 167–187.
18.
GeelsFWSmitWA (2000) Lessons from failed technology futures: Potholes in the road to the future. In: Brown N, Rappert B and Webster A (eds) Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 129–155.
19.
GrossA (1994)
The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science3: 3–23.
20.
GustonDH (2012)
The Pumpkin or the Tiger? Michael Polanyi, Frederick Soddy, and anticipating emerging technologies.Minerva50: 363–379.
21.
HeathRL (2014) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II.
Abingdon:
Taylor & Francis.
22.
HorstM (2007)
Public expectations of gene therapy: Scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Science, Technology, & Human Values32: 150–171.
23.
HorstM (2013) Learning from discomfort: Science communication experiments between diffusion, dialogue and emergence. In: Philips L, Kristiansen M, Vehviläinen M and Gunnarsson E (eds) Knowledge and Power in Collaborative Research: A Reflexive Approach. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 21–41.
24.
HorstMMichaelM (2011)
On the shoulders of idiots. Science as Culture20: 283–306.
25.
IrwinA (2001)
Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10: 1–18.
KerrACunningham-BurleySTuttonR (2007)
Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science37: 827–853.
28.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
29.
McCurdyHE (2011) Space and the American Imagination.
Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University Press.
30.
MarresN (2005) Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey debate. In: Latour B and Weibel P (eds) Making Things Public. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 208–217.
31.
MasterZResnikD (2011)
Hype and public trust in science.Science and Engineering Ethics19: 321–335.
32.
MeadGH (1934) Mind, Self, and Society.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
33.
MichaelM (2012) ‘
What are we busy doing?’ Engaging the idiot. Science, Technology, & Human Values37: 528–554.
34.
MichaelM (2013) The idiot. Informática na Educação: teoria e Prática 16: 71–82.
NerlichB (2013)
Moderation impossible? On hype, honesty and trust in the context of modern academic life. The Sociological Review61: 43–57.
37.
NerlichBMcLeodC (2016)
The dilemma of raising awareness ‘responsibly’. EMBO Reports17: 481–485.
38.
NicholsMH (1963) Rhetoric and Criticism.
Baton Rouge, LA:
Louisiana State University Press.
39.
NisbetMScheufeleDA (2009)
What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions.American Journal of Botany96: 1767–1778.
O’NeillO (2002) A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
42.
Palacious-BerraqueroCMueckLPersaudDM (2019)
Supremacy is for racists – Use ‘quantum advantage’. Nature576: 213.
43.
PeddieVLPorterMCounsellCCaieLPearsonDBhattacharyaS (2009)
‘Not taken in by media hype’: How potential donors, recipients and members of the general public perceive stem cell research.Human Reproduction24: 1106–1113.
44.
PetersenAMunsieMTannerCMacGregorCBrophyJ (2017) Stem Cell Tourisms and the Political Economy of Hope.
London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
45.
RamanSHobson-WestPLamMEMillarK (2018) ‘Science matters’ and the public interest: The role of minority engagement. In: NerlichBHartleySRamanSSmithA (eds) Science and the Politics of Openness: Here be Monsters.
Manchester:
Manchester University Press, pp. 230–250.
RobersonT (2020) Can Hype Be a Force for Good?Centre for Public Awareness of Science.
Canberra, ACT, Australia:
Australian National University.
48.
RussellKMLammeMO (2016)
Theorizing public relations history: The roles of strategic intent and human agency. Public Relations Review42: 741–747.
49.
SamuelGWilliamsCGardnerJ (2015)
UK science press officers, professional vision and the generation of expectations.Public Understanding of Science26: 55–69.
50.
StarrKA (2008) NASA’s hidden power: NACA/NASA public relations and the Cold War. Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate Faculty, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
51.
StilgoeJGustonDH (2017) Responsible research and innovation. In: FeltUFoucheRMillerCASmith-DoerrL (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 4th edn.
Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press, pp. 465–493.
52.
TaylorMKentML (2014)
Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research26: 384–398.
53.
WebbSH (1999)
The rhetoric of ethics as excess: A Christian theological response to Emmanuel Levinas. Modern Theology15: 1–16.
