Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 321–335 | Cite as

Hype and Public Trust in Science

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

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.

Keywords

Public trust Hype Biotechnology Public support/enthusiasm Responsible conduct of research 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

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.

References

  1. Barnett, J., Cooper, H., & Senior, V. (2007). Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 921–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, R. L. (1990). Nazi science—the Dachau hypothermia experiments. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(20), 1435–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The Hastings Center Report, 8(6), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, N. (2003). Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2), 3–21.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2010). Role and reality: Technology transfer at Canadian universities. Trends in Biotechnology, 28(9), 447–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Caulfield, T. (2005). Popular media, biotechnology, and the ‘cycle of hype’. Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, 5(2), 213–233.Google Scholar
  11. Caulfield, T. (2010). Stem cell research and economic promises. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics, 38(2), 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caulfield, T., Rachul, C., & Zarzeczny, A. (2010). ‘Neurohype’ and the name game: Who’s to blame. AJOB Neuroscience, 1(2), 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conrad, P. (2001). Genetic optimism: Framing genes and mental illness in the news. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 25(2), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cunningham-Burley, S. (2006). Public knowledge and public trust. Community Genetics, 9(3), 204–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doerflinger, R. M. (2008). The problem of deception in embryonic stem cell research. Cell Proliferation, 41(Suppl 1), 65–70.Google Scholar
  20. Downey, R., & Geransar, R. (2008). Stem cell research, publics’ and stakeholder views. Health Law Review, 16(2), 69–85.Google Scholar
  21. Dresser, R. (2001). When science offers salvation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dresser, R. (2010). Stem cell research as innovation: Expanding the ethical and policy conversation. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics, 38(2), 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Enserink, M. (1999). Ag biotech moves to mollify its critics. Science, 286(5445), 1666–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans, J. P., Meslin, E. M., Marteau, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2011). Deflating the genomics bubble. Science, 331(6019), 861–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gartner.com. (2011). Gartner hype cycle. http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp#. Accessed January 22, 2011.
  30. Gottweis, H. (2002). Gene therapy and the public: A matter of trust. Gene Therapy, 9(11), 667–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Jones, N. L. (2007). A code of ethics for the life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
  34. Kakuk, P. (2009). The legacy of the Hwang case: Research misconduct in the biosciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(4), 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kimmelman, J. (2010). Gene transfer and the ethics of first-in-human research. Lost in translation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  40. Liu, S. V. (2009). Fast protest against a fast hype on iPS cells. Top Watch, 4(2), 44–47.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Master, Z., & Ozdemir, V. (2008). Selling translational research: Is science a value-neutral autonomous enterprise? American Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 52–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Master, Z, & Resnik, D. B. (2011). Stem-cell tourism and scientific responsibility. EMBO Reports, 12(10), 992–995.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mooney, C. (2010). Do scientists understand the public?. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
  46. Murphy, E. R., Illes, J., & Reiner, P. B. (2008). Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(4–5), 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nature. (2006). Nature milestones cancer (Milestones Timeline). Nature, S7–S23. http://www.nature.com/milestones/milecancer/timeline.html. Accessed March 6, 2011.
  48. Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science (revised edition). New York, NY: WH Freeman.Google Scholar
  49. 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.
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ogbogu, U. (2006). A review of pressing ethical issues relevant to stem cell translational research. Health Law Review, 14(3), 39–43.Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Petersen, A. (2001). Biofantasies: Genetics and medicine in the print news media. Social Science and Medicine, 52(8), 1255–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Priest, S. H. (2001). Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication, 23(2), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Resnik, D. B. (2011). Scientific research and the public trust. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 399–409.Google Scholar
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schrage, M. (2004). Great expectations. Technology Review, 107(8), 21.Google Scholar
  63. Shamoo, A. S., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Somia, N., & Verma, I. M. (2000). Gene therapy: Trials and tribulations. Nature Reviews Genetics, 1(2), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Steel, M. (2005). Molecular medicine: Promises, promises? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98(5), 197–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. (1999). “hype” Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. 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.
  71. Turney, J. (1996). Public understanding of science. The Lancet, 347(9008), 1087–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.
  73. 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.
  74. 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.
  75. Whitbeck, C. (1995). Truth and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1(4), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams-Jones, B. (2004). A spoonful of trust helps nanotech go down. Health Law Review, 12(3), 10–13.Google Scholar
  77. Williams-Jones, B., & Corrigan, O. P. (2003). Rhetoric and hype: Where’s the ‘ethics’ in pharmacogenomics. American Journal of Pharmacogenomics, 3(6), 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson, J. M. (2009). A history lesson for stem cells. Science, 324(5928), 727–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(1), 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Health Law and Science Policy Group, Rm 462, Law CentreUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.National Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institutes of HealthResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations