Hype and public trust in science.

Zubin Master, David B Resnik
Author Information
  1. Zubin Master: Health Law and Science Policy Group, Rm 462, Law Centre, University of Alberta, 89 Avenue and 111 Street, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H5, Canada. zubin@zubsplace.com

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.

References

  1. Cell Prolif. 2008 Feb;41 Suppl 1:65-70 [PMID: 18181947]
  2. J Law Med Ethics. 2010 Summer;38(2):303-13 [PMID: 20579253]
  3. Sci Eng Ethics. 1995 Oct;1(4):403-16 [PMID: 11657785]
  4. Nat Rev Genet. 2000 Nov;1(2):91-9 [PMID: 11253666]
  5. Trends Biotechnol. 2010 Sep;28(9):447-51 [PMID: 20598388]
  6. Nat Biotechnol. 2009 Jun;27(6):514-8 [PMID: 19513051]
  7. Science. 2009 May 8;324(5928):727-8 [PMID: 19423804]
  8. Am J Bioeth. 2010 May;10(5):3-15 [PMID: 20461636]
  9. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2009 Mar;28(1):5.1-12 [PMID: 19839276]
  10. Risk Anal. 2009 Feb;29(2):288-97 [PMID: 18826417]
  11. Science. 1999 Nov 26;286(5445):1666-8 [PMID: 10610558]
  12. J Gen Intern Med. 1999 Sep;14(9):537-46 [PMID: 10491242]
  13. Risk Anal. 2003 Aug;23(4):751-66 [PMID: 12926568]
  14. CMAJ. 2004 Apr 27;170(9):1399-407 [PMID: 15111473]
  15. Soc Sci Med. 2001 Apr;52(8):1255-68 [PMID: 11281408]
  16. Community Genet. 2006;9(3):204-10 [PMID: 16741351]
  17. Hum Reprod. 2009 May;24(5):1106-13 [PMID: 19168873]
  18. Soc Sci Med. 2005 Aug;61(3):731-40 [PMID: 15899330]
  19. Risk Anal. 2005 Oct;25(5):1241-52 [PMID: 16297228]
  20. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2001 Jun;25(2):225-47 [PMID: 11453260]
  21. J Law Med Ethics. 2010 Summer;38(2):332-41 [PMID: 20579255]
  22. Gene Ther. 2002 Jun;9(11):667-9 [PMID: 12032683]
  23. Risk Anal. 2007 Aug;27(4):921-33 [PMID: 17958501]
  24. Public Underst Sci. 2008 Jul;17(3):309-27 [PMID: 19069082]
  25. Soc Sci Med. 2001 Mar;52(5):797-808 [PMID: 11218181]
  26. Sci Eng Ethics. 2009 Dec;15(4):545-62 [PMID: 19247809]
  27. N Engl J Med. 1966 Jun 16;274(24):1354-60 [PMID: 5327352]
  28. Hastings Cent Rep. 1978 Dec;8(6):21-9 [PMID: 721302]
  29. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003 Jul;3(7):477-88 [PMID: 12835668]
  30. Lancet. 1996 Apr 20;347(9008):1087-90 [PMID: 8602062]
  31. N Engl J Med. 1990 May 17;322(20):1435-40 [PMID: 2184357]
  32. N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 15;363(3):204-7 [PMID: 20538622]
  33. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Jan;11(1):61-9 [PMID: 19953102]
  34. Regen Med. 2010 Jan;5(1):27-33 [PMID: 20017692]
  35. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Mar;13(1):25-43 [PMID: 17703607]
  36. Am J Bioeth. 2008 Mar;8(3):52-4; discussion W1-3 [PMID: 18570104]
  37. Science. 2011 Feb 18;331(6019):861-2 [PMID: 21330519]
  38. Mol Genet Metab. 2009 May;97(1):4-5 [PMID: 19285443]
  39. EMBO Rep. 2011 Sep 30;12(10):992-5 [PMID: 21799519]
  40. J R Soc Med. 2005 May;98(5):197-9 [PMID: 15863761]
  41. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011 Sep;17(3):399-409 [PMID: 20803259]
  42. Risk Anal. 2000 Oct;20(5):713-9 [PMID: 11110217]
  43. Risk Anal. 2000 Apr;20(2):195-203 [PMID: 10859780]
  44. Am J Pharmacogenomics. 2003;3(6):375-83 [PMID: 14672518]
  45. Nature. 1989 Jul 6;340(6228):11-4 [PMID: 2739718]

Grants

  1. ZIA ES102646-04/Intramural NIH HHS
  2. ZIA ES102646-05/Intramural NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Biotechnology
Communication
Diffusion of Innovation
Empirical Research
Ethics, Research
Humans
Public Opinion
Science
Trust

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0publictrusthypescienceempiricalresearchscientistsbiotechnologyenthusiasm/supportSocialbegunelucidatingvariablesinfluenceyetlittleknowneffectsManyscholarsclaimhypingresultslosspossiblyenthusiasmsupportexpectationsbiotechnologicalpromiseswillunmetargueneedexaminesrelationshipsdiscusscomplexitiesdesigningstudiesprovideevidencecausallinkalsoillustratemayremediedneededorderimprovecommunicationdesignevidence-basededucationresponsibleconductconcludeconceptualargumentsmademustnuancedreflectcurrentunderstandingrelationshipHype

Similar Articles

Cited By