The Ethics of Hyping Basic Science

It’s a familiar formula for those who follow how early-stage, curiosity-driven research is communicated to the wider world: stories that envision incredible gadgets, life-saving medical interventions, or other wonders that the research could one day enable. Hype is the word for this kind of exaggerated language that weaves narratives about the potential of science or technology. But what happens to the relationship between science and society when pie-in-the-sky promises take decades to materialize, if they ever materialize at all?

“There are pros and cons about hype,” says Leiden University science communication researcher Julia Cramer. Scientists’ work can seem very far away from citizens’ ordinary lives, but scientists funded by tax dollars understand the need to connect with people. Surveys suggest that non-scientists commonly associate science with its payoffs or with hope for a better future. Scientists might therefore capture society’s imagination early in the cycle of discovery by choosing to invoke faraway applications, Cramer says. When inflated expectations are not met, however, people could become disappointed in or even mistrustful of science, she says. Hype in one field’s media coverage might overshadow crucial developments in another. Funding might flow in ways that privilege hyped work over other necessary investments.

No formal guidelines exist for ethical communication of science that isn’t necessarily directed at applications for society. “Where’s the red line? When are we overhyping or connecting in the wrong way?” Cramer asks.

Cramer is a co-recipient of a grant from The Kavli Foundation to explore that territory. The project aims to begin formalizing ethical considerations for using hype when communicating basic research.

One aspect of the work will investigate the timing of how media outlets and communicators publicize basic research. Multiple reports published by the National Academy of Sciences call for earlier communication of science that might have societal implications. “But when is it too early?" Cramer asks.

Cramer points to her own field of quantum physics as well as artificial intelligence as examples for pondering the ethics of timing. In her experience, communicating about quantum physics immediately prompts two questions from audiences: "What are the applications and when are they [going to be] there?" Without answers to those questions, Cramer wonders, is it too early from an ethical standpoint to be communicating the research?

Artificial intelligence, meanwhile, provides a historical view of hype. The field dates to the mid 20th century, and over the decades “you see these hype cycles... like a bit of over promising or a lot of attention.” Those are typically followed by dips in attention and funding called AI winters. It’s not clear to what extent those dips are connected to disappointment from society, nor whether waves of interest and inattention are inevitable when covering basic research.

Another layer of the work will seek to uncover the incentive structure that influences decisions to prioritize certain disciplines over others in media coverage. Cramer co-authored a content analysis demonstrating that the outsized attention given by Dutch newspapers to quantum physics, astrophysics, and a few other physics subfields has no relationship to the fields’ research productivity.

To explore these lines of thinking, Cramer and her collaborators on the grant have already begun the process of proposing an in-person workshop to The Lorentz Center, a venue known for encouraging gatherings of experts from diverse fields and whose application materials welcome “daring workshops”. After the workshop, “I think we’ll have some lessons learned, or a rule book on the ethics of timing” basic research communications, Cramer says.

Cramer and her co-grantees have organized Lorentz Center workshops in the past. One workshop dissected hype in Cramer’s field of quantum technology. Another, for which organizers included her colleagues—Leiden University’s Associate Professor in Astronomy & Society, Pedro Russo, and science historian Danilo Albergaria—analyzed how to convey nuance when reporting on the search for life beyond Earth. After both the quantum and astrobiology workshops, the team published conclusions in reports.

One takeaway from the prior workshops was a need to conduct a thorough literature search beforehand, in order to productively direct workshop questions and discussions, Cramer says. This grant will support Albergaria as he scours peer reviewed journal articles, white papers, and other reports from the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. He’ll look for what’s already published on timing and ethics for communicating basic research, and analyze the findings with Cramer, Russo, and science and technology ethics researcher Joanna Sleigh of ETH Zürich.

“Both the literature and the workshop will be interdisciplinary,” Cramer says. “In that intersection, hopefully, we’ll find something new.”

“One of the big questions when thinking about how to engage publics about science sooner than we traditionally have been, is when to do this,” says Brooke Smith, The Kavli Foundation’s Director of Science and Society. “Work by Leiden University will shed light into this question, uncovering insights about timing and framing that can help scientists, journalists, engagement experts and more, design ethical approaches to discussing early-stage research.”