Science and the sources of hype
Abstract
It has been suggested that genomic research is frequently inappropriately hyped, in both the popular press and the scientific literature, and that this hype has the potential to create a range of social concerns. This paper maps the complex array of social forces that contribute to the phenomenon of hype, including the pressure to publish, the increasingly intense commercialization agenda, the messaging emanating from research institutions, the news media and, even, the public itself. These numerous and interrelated factors create a 'hype pipeline' that will be difficult to counter without the utilization of a wide range of policy strategies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Miscalibration of news coverage-not to the magnitude of advances but rather to the greater public appetite for new developments in controversial areas of genetics-can result in cascading distortions of the genetic basis of phenotypic traits that studies do not imply and that their authors do not support.
“Miscalibration of news coverage—not to the magnitude of advances but rather to the greater public appetite for new developments in controversial areas of genetics [59]—can result in cascading distortions of the genetic basis of phenotypic traits that studies do not imply and that their authors do not support [17].”
From Interpreting polygenic scores, polygenic adaptation, and human phenotypic differences (2019) · cites this paper as [59]
Cites
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147 · see citing works
Schwitzer, G. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Lost in publication: how measurement harms science
Lawrence, P. (2008) · Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics · doi:10.3354/esep00079 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Press Releases of Science Journal Articles and Subsequent Newspaper Stories on the Same Topic
de Semir, V. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.294 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Brechman, J., Lee, C.-J., & Cappella, J. N. (2009) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547009332649 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interpreting polygenic scores, polygenic adaptation, and human phenotypic differences
Rosenberg, N. A., Edge, M. D., Pritchard, J. K., & Feldman, M. W. (2019) · Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health · doi:10.1093/emph/eoy036 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
“Miscalibration of news coverage—not to the magnitude of advances but rather to the greater public appetite for new developments in controversial areas of genetics [59]—can result in cascading distortions of the genetic basis of phenotypic traits that studies do not imply and that their authors do not support [17].”
Does AI Raise Any Distinctive Ethical Questions?
Boddington, P. (2017) · Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60648-4_3 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Caulfield, T., & Condit, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- University of Georgia (US)
- Venue
- Public Health Genomics
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 209-217
- ISSN
- 1422-2795 (ISSN-L)
- 1662-4246
- 1662-8063
- OpenAlex
- W1994334076
- Cited by
- 152
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 17.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Health Genomics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Stem Cell Network
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Keywords
- hype, genomic research, science communication, media coverage, commercialization of research, publish or perish, research institutions, news media, public perception, science policy
- MeSH terms
- Commerce, Communication, Genetics, Medical, Health Policy, Humans, Mass Media, Public Health, Public Opinion, Research, Science, Genome, Human, Public Health Practice, Genomics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
