The Hype Factor: When Science Mirrors Marketing Strategies
Written on
Chapter 1: The Intersection of Science and Funding
In today's research landscape, an increasing number of scientists are resorting to what is often termed "hype language" in their funding applications. This trend raises questions about the integrity of scientific communication and the motivations behind it.
This paragraph will result in an indented block of text, typically used for quoting other text.
Section 1.1: The Influence of Financial Backers
A common tactic used to undermine a study's credibility is to point out its funding source and declare, "Look, they were financed by [organization X]. Their findings can't be trusted!" While it's true that funding can introduce bias—especially when a study is sponsored by entities with vested interests—this critique oversimplifies the complex relationship between research and funding. For a deeper understanding of evaluating scientific studies, consider this comprehensive guide.
The reality is that scientific research is expensive. Many researchers, particularly those in academia, devote a significant amount of their time to crafting grant applications to secure financial backing from government agencies, NGOs, and private corporations. Having been involved in drafting and editing numerous grant proposals for major funding bodies, I can attest that these documents are often tedious and cumbersome.
Typically, grant applications consist of various sections, each with strict word limits, and their primary goal is to effectively promote the researcher and their project. The term "promote" is used deliberately, as funding organizations increasingly adopt business-like criteria for decision-making. Many grants hinge on reputation (such as publications and citations), historical success (including preliminary data and an established research foundation), targeted outreach (identifying potential beneficiaries), and commercialization potential (assessing the likelihood of leading to products or patents). In essence, this resembles marketing strategies.
Section 1.2: The Rise of Hype Language
While not every grant application exhibits this trend, a recent study reveals a staggering rise in the use of "hype language" within applications for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. The researchers analyzed over 900,000 grant abstracts submitted from 1985 to 2020, discovering that the frequency of what they term "hype adjectives" has surged by an incredible 1,400%.
To clarify, "hype" in this context refers to:
…exaggerated and/or subjective language utilized to enhance, promote, or overstate various aspects of research.
This language bears a striking resemblance to marketing tactics. The researchers categorized the hype adjectives into eight major groups, with examples including:
- Importance: crucial, fundamental, key, pivotal, significant
- Novelty: creative, groundbreaking, innovative, novel, unprecedented
- Rigor: advanced, detailed, nuanced, rigorous, systematic
- Scale: ample, comprehensive, extensive, interdisciplinary, overwhelming
- Utility: accessible, actionable, effective, impactful, transformative
- Quality: ambitious, exceptional, prestigious, promising, stellar
- Attitude: confident, interesting, notable, outstanding, remarkable
- Problem: alarming, daunting, elusive, unanswered, unmet
It's evident that many of these terms have become alarmingly commonplace.
Chapter 2: The Consequences of Hype Language
As hype language becomes increasingly normalized, both researchers and funding reviewers may unconsciously expect it. This trend poses several risks.
For instance, bias is a significant concern; hype language can skew research evaluations. We all have inherent biases, and such language can subtly trigger these biases. Additionally, the proliferation of buzzwords complicates the ability of individuals outside a specific research field to grasp the core message, often leading to superfluous language that merely serves to inflate word counts (e.g., "novel innovations").
Moreover, excessive use of hype adjectives diminishes their significance. If everything is described as "novel," the term loses its true meaning.
It's important to emphasize that this critique is not an indictment of science itself. Most scientists are dedicated, honest, and highly capable individuals. My own background in science has convinced me that it provides one of the most effective frameworks for understanding the universe and creating a better future. My concern lies in the increasing commodification of science, which risks stifling originality and exploiting talented individuals for profit.
We must seek a more effective approach to scientific communication.
For broader insights on various topics such as science, philosophy, technology, and psychology, consider subscribing to my newsletter, Thinking Ahead. Your interest is greatly appreciated.
Explore personal experiences and insights on trust in scientific research.
Learn how to navigate the world of hype in the arts and business with expert Michael Schein.