ArticleScience and engineering ethics2013
Hype and public trust in science.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generics in science communication: Misaligned interpretations across laypeople, scientists, and large language models.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026Article
- Ethics, generative AI and science communication.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026Article
- Scientific publications that use promotional language in the abstract receive more citations and public attention.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Ethical decision-making and role conflict in managing a scientific laboratory.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- Public Perceptions of Treating Opioid Use Disorder With Deep Brain Stimulation: Comment Analysis Study.Online journal of public health informatics · 2024Article
- Improving Public Trust in Biobanking: Roundtable Discussions from the 2021 ISBER Annual Meeting.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2023Article
- Clinical use of autologous cell-based therapies in an evolving regulatory landscape: A survey of patient experiences and perceptions.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Peddling promise? An analysis of private umbilical cord blood banking company websites in Canada.Cell and tissue banking · 2021Article
- The Impact of Communicating Uncertainty on Public Responses to Precision Medicine Research.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2021Article
- Polygenic risk scoring of human embryos: a qualitative study of media coverage.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Science Communication in the Age of Misinformation.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2020Article
- Determinants of stakeholders' intention to adopt pharmacogenomic.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2020Article
- True Negatives: Disseminating Research on Null, Inconclusive, and Confirmatory Findings in Cardiovascular Science.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2020Article
- The law and problematic marketing by private umbilical cord blood banks.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Best practices in nutrition science to earn and keep the public's trust.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2019Review
- Representing a "revolution": how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
- Resilience, trust, and civic engagement in the post-CCSVI era.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Phages Make for Jolly Good Stories.Viruses · 2018Article
- Determinants of stakeholders' attitudes towards biodiesel.Biotechnology for biofuels · 2017Article
- Data-Intensive Science and Research Integrity.Accountability in research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.