Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Hype and Public Trust in Science

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social scientists have begun elucidating the variables that influence public trust in science, yet little is known about hype in biotechnology and its effects on public trust. Many scholars claim that hyping biotechnology results in a loss of public trust, and possibly public enthusiasm or support for science, because public expectations of the biotechnological promises will be unmet. We argue for the need for empirical research that examines the relationships between hype, public trust, and public enthusiasm/support. We discuss the complexities in designing empirical studies that provide evidence for a causal link between hype, public trust, and public enthusiasm/support, but also illustrate how this may be remedied. Further empirical research on hype and public trust is needed in order to improve public communication of science and to design evidence-based education on the responsible conduct of research for scientists. We conclude that conceptual arguments made on hype and public trust must be nuanced to reflect our current understanding of this relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnett, J., Cooper, H., & Senior, V. (2007). Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 921–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, R. L. (1990). Nazi science—the Dachau hypothermia experiments. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(20), 1435–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The Hastings Center Report, 8(6), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. (2003). Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2004). Do the print media “hype” genetics research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170(9), 1399–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2010). Role and reality: Technology transfer at Canadian universities. Trends in Biotechnology, 28(9), 447–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., et al. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), 514–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, E. F. (2006). Times of triumph, times of doubt: Science and the battle of public trust. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, T. (2005). Popular media, biotechnology, and the ‘cycle of hype’. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, 5(2), 213–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, T. (2010). Stem cell research and economic promises. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics, 38(2), 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulfield, T., Rachul, C., & Zarzeczny, A. (2010). ‘Neurohype’ and the name game: Who’s to blame. AJOB Neuroscience, 1(2), 13–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, P. (1999). Use of expertise: Sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 285–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, P. (2001). Genetic optimism: Framing genes and mental illness in the news. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 25(2), 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S. B., Williams, M. V., & Moody-Ayers, S. (1999). Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14(9), 537–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham-Burley, S. (2006). Public knowledge and public trust. Community Genetics, 9(3), 204–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doerflinger, R. M. (2008). The problem of deception in embryonic stem cell research. Cell Proliferation, 41(Suppl 1), 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, R., & Geransar, R. (2008). Stem cell research, publics’ and stakeholder views. Health Law Review, 16(2), 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresser, R. (2001). When science offers salvation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresser, R. (2010). Stem cell research as innovation: Expanding the ethical and policy conversation. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics, 38(2), 332–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiser, J. R., Stafford, T., Henneberry, J., & Catney, P. (2009). ‘Trust me, I’m a scientist (not a developer)’: Perceived expertise and motives as predictors of trust in assessment of risk from contaminated land. Risk Analysis, 29(2), 288–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enserink, M. (1999). Ag biotech moves to mollify its critics. Science, 286(5445), 1666–1668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G., & Durant, T. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. P., Meslin, E. M., Marteau, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2011). Deflating the genomics bubble. Science, 331(6019), 861–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freimuth, V. S., Quinn, S. C., Thomas, S. B., Cole, G., Zook, E., & Duncan, T. (2001). African Americans’ views on research and the Tuskegee syphilis study. Social Science and Medicine, 52(5), 797–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner.com. (2011). Gartner hype cycle. http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp#. Accessed January 22, 2011.

  • Gottweis, H. (2002). Gene therapy and the public: A matter of trust. Gene Therapy, 9(11), 667–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illes, J., Moser, M. A., McCormick, M. B., Racine, E., Blakeslee, S., Caplan, A., et al. (2010). Neurotalk: Improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(1), 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. with Capron, A. M., & Glass, E. S. (2003). The Jewish chronic disease hospital case. In E. Emanuel, R. A. Crouch, J. D. Arras, J. D. Moreno & C. Grady (Eds.) Ethical and regulatory aspects of clinical research. Readings and commentary (pp. 11–15). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Jones, N. L. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakuk, P. (2009). The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in the biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 545–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmelman, J. (2010). Gene transfer and the ethics of first-in-human research. Lost in translation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger, J., & Williams, C. (2005). Forecasting science futures: Legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Social Science and Medicine, 61(3), 731–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, L. P. (2009). Stem cell hype and the dangers of stem cell ‘tourism’. Ethics White Paper for the Stem Cell Network. http://www.stemcellnetwork.ca/uploads/File/whitepapers/Stem-Cell-Hype.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2011.

  • Kohn, D. B., Sadelain, M., & Glorioso, J. C. (2003). Occurrence of leukaemia following gene therapy for X-linked SCID. Nature Reviews Cancer, 3(7), 477–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. V. (2009). Fast protest against a fast hype on iPS cells. Top Watch, 4(2), 44–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H., & Priest, S. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 704–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Master, Z., & Ozdemir, V. (2008). Selling translational research: Is science a value-neutral autonomous enterprise? American Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 52–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Master, Z, & Resnik, D. B. (2011). Stem-cell tourism and scientific responsibility. EMBO Reports, 12(10), 992–995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mello, M. M., & Wolf, L. E. (2010). The Havasupai Indian tribe case—lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(3), 204–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, C. (2010). Do scientists understand the public?. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, E. R., Illes, J., & Reiner, P. B. (2008). Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(4–5), 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nature. (2006). Nature milestones cancer (Milestones Timeline). Nature, S7–S23. http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/timeline.html. Accessed March 6, 2011.

  • Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science (revised edition). New York, NY: WH Freeman.

  • Nisbet, M. (2004). Explaining majority support for stem cell research. Skeptical Inquirer. http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/explaining_majority_support_for_stem_cell_research/. Accessed February 12, 2011.

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perception of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 421–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American Media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23(4), 359–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogbogu, U. (2006). A review of pressing ethical issues relevant to stem cell translational research. Health Law Review, 14(3), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peddie, V. L., Porter, M., Counsell, C., Caie, L., Pearson, D., & Bhattacharya, S. (2009). ’Not taken in by media hype’: How potential donors, recipients and members of the general public perceive stem cell research. Human Reproduction, 24(5), 1106–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A. (2001). Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science and Medicine, 52(8), 1255–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A. (2002). Replicating our bodies, losing our selves: News media portrayals of human cloning in wake of Dolly. Body and Society, 8(4), 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A. (2009). The ethics of expectations: Biobanks and the promise of personalized medicine. Monash Bioethics Reviews, 28(1), 05.1–05.12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H. (2001). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23(2), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest, S. H., Bonfadelli, H., & Rusanen, M. (2003). The ‘trust gap’ hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2011). Scientific research and the public trust. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 399–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, K. A., Sanders, A. M., Wang, D. D., & Levine, A. D. (2010). Tracking the rise of stem cell tourism. Regenerative Medicine, 5(1), 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, M. (2004). Great expectations. Technology Review, 107(8), 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo, A. S., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somia, N., & Verma, I. M. (2000). Gene therapy: Trials and tribulations. Nature Reviews Genetics, 1(2), 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, M. (2005). Molecular medicine: Promises, promises? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98(5), 197–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1241–1252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. (1999). “hype” Oxford University Press.

  • Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Science Literacy Papers, 1, 1–14. http://www.core.org.cn/NR/rdonlyres/Science–Technology–and-Society/STS-014Spring-2006/2737FE74-34D6-4A16-A7DD-95F0FBE60BA0/0/durant_promote.pdf. Accessed May 14, 2011.

  • Turney, J. (1996). Public understanding of science. The Lancet, 347(9008), 1087–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, P. (2000). ‘The Experiments’ in results of death-camp experiments: Should they be used? NOVA online (Holocaust on Trial). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/experiside.html. Accessed March 5, 2011.

  • Wellcome Trust (1998). Public perspectives on human cloning. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Public-engagement/WTD003422.htm. Accessed February 21, 2011.

  • Wellcome Trust (2005). Information and attitudes: Consulting the public about biomedical science. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Public-engagement/WTX026430.htm. Accessed February 21, 2011.

  • Whitbeck, C. (1995). Truth and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(4), 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams-Jones, B. (2004). A spoonful of trust helps nanotech go down. Health Law Review, 12(3), 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams-Jones, B., & Corrigan, O. P. (2003). Rhetoric and hype: Where’s the ‘ethics’ in pharmacogenomics. American Journal of Pharmacogenomics, 3(6), 375–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. M. (2009). A history lesson for stem cells. Science, 324(5928), 727–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarborough, M., & Sharp, R. R. (2009). Public trust and research a decade later: What have we learned since Jesse Gelsinger’s death? Molecular Genetics and Metabolism, 97(1), 4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarzeczny, A., & Caulfield, T. (2010). Stem cell tourism and doctors’ duties to minors—a view from Canada. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(5), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1), 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Professor Timothy Caulfield for the insightful comments on several iterations of this manuscript. We would also like to thank Dr. Bruce Androphy and the reviewers of this manuscript for providing helpful feedback. This research was supported, in part, by a generous grant from the Cancer Stem Cell Consortium and the Stem Cell Network. The work presented here does not represent the views of Health Canada or the Canadian government. This research is also the work product of an employee or group of employees of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), however, the statements, opinions or conclusions contained therein do not necessarily represent the statements, opinions or conclusions of NIEHS, NIH or the United States government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zubin Master.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Master, Z., Resnik, D.B. Hype and Public Trust in Science. Sci Eng Ethics 19, 321–335 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9327-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9327-6

Keywords

Navigation