Hype and Public Trust in Science
- 1.1k Downloads
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.
KeywordsPublic trust Hype Biotechnology Public support/enthusiasm Responsible conduct of research
- Brown, N. (2003). Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2), 3–21.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
- Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.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
- Gartner.com. (2011). Gartner hype cycle. http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp#. Accessed January 22, 2011.
- 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.Google Scholar
- Jones, N. L. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 25–43.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
- 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.
- 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
- Master, Z, & Resnik, D. B. (2011). Stem-cell tourism and scientific responsibility. EMBO Reports, 12(10), 992–995.Google Scholar
- Mooney, C. (2010). Do scientists understand the public?. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.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.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Ogbogu, U. (2006). A review of pressing ethical issues relevant to stem cell translational research. Health Law Review, 14(3), 39–43.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
- 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
- Schrage, M. (2004). Great expectations. Technology Review, 107(8), 21.Google Scholar
- The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. (1999). “hype” Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- Williams-Jones, B. (2004). A spoonful of trust helps nanotech go down. Health Law Review, 12(3), 10–13.Google Scholar