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.

Keywords:
Genetics, Hype, Media, Science communication
1.
Don’t feed the hype (editorial). Nat Genet 2003;35:1.
2.
Mason C, Manzotti E: Induced pluripotent stem cells: an emerging technology platform and the Gartner hype cycle. Regen Med 2009;4:329–331.
3.
Caulfield T, Rachul C, Zarzeczny A, Walter H: Mapping the coverage of neuroimaging research. ScriptED 2010;7:421–428.
4.
Maynard AD: Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Ann Occup Hyg 2007;51:1–12.
5.
Petersen A: The ethics of expectations: biobanks and the promise of personalised medicine. Monash Bioeth Rev 2009;28:05.1–05.12.
6.
Bubela T, Nisbet M, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, Geller G, Gupta A, Hampel J, Hyde-Lay R, Jandciu1 EW, Jones SA, Kolopack P, Lane S, Lougheed T, Nerlich B, Ogbogu U, O’Riordan K, Ouellette C, Spear M, Strauss S, Thavaratnam T, Willemse L, Caulfield T: Science communication reconsidered. Nat Biotech 2009;27:514–518.
7.
Caulfield T, Zarzeczny A: Popular culture representations of science: views from the Canadian stem cell research community. Stem Cell Rev 2010;6:337–339.
8.
Gollust SE, Hull SC, Wilfond B: Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA 2002;288:1762–1767.
9.
Morris BJ, Benjafield AV, Lin RC: Essential hypertensions: genes and dreams. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003;41:834–844.
10.
Webster A, Martin P, Lewis G, Smart A: Integrating pharmacogenetics into society: in search of a model. Nat Rev Genet 2004;5:663–669.
11.
Racine E, Gareau I, Doucet H, Laudy D, Jobin G, Schraedley-Desmond P: Hyped biomedical science or uncritical reporting? Press coverage of genomics (1992–2001) in Québec. Soc Sci Med 2006;62:1278–1290.
12.
Cohen J: The genomics gamble. Science 1997;275:767–772.
13.
Rose H: From hype to mothballs in four years: troubles in the development of large-scale DNA biobanks in Europe. Community Genet 2006;9:184–189.
14.
Brown N: Hope against hype–accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Sci Stud 2003;16:3–21.
15.
Boddington P: Commentary 1. ‘Telling the truth about genomics’: hype and hope. Commun Med 2006;3:93–94.
16.
Wilson J: A history lesson for stem cells. Science 2009;324:727–728.
17.
Evans J, Meslin EM, Marteau TM, Caulfield T: Deflating the genomic bubble. Science 2011;331:861–862.
18.
Wallace H: Bioscience for life? Who decides what research is done in health and agriculture? GeneWatch UK, March 2010.
19.
Young ME, Norman GR, Humphreys KR: Medicine in the popular press: the influence of the media on perceptions of disease. PLoS One 2008;3:e3552.
20.
Chen L, Kwok O, Goodson P: US health educators’ likelihood of adopting genomics competencies into health promotion. Am J Public Health 2008;98:1651–1657.
21.
Piper MA, Lindenmayer JM, Lengerich EJ, Pass KA, Brown WG, Crowder WB, Khoury MJ, Baker TG, Lloyd-Puryear MA, Bryan JL: The role of state public health agencies in genetics and disease prevention: results of a national survey. Public Health Rep 2001;116:22–31.
22.
Carroll JC, Rideout AL, Wilson BJ, Allanson JM, Blaine SM, Esplen MJ, Farrell SA, Graham GE, MacKenzie J, Meschino W, Miller F, Prakash P, Shuman C, Summers A, Taylor S: Genetic education for primary care providers: improving attitudes, knowledge, and confidence. Can Fam Physician 2009;55:e92–e99.
23.
Baars MJ, Henneman L, Ten Kate LP: Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians: a global problem. Genet Med 2005;7:605–610.
24.
Condit CM, Ferguson A, Kassel R, Thadhani C, Gooding HC, Parrott R: An exploratory study of the impact of news headlines on genetic determinism. Sci Commun 2001;22:379–395.
25.
Peddie VL, Porter M, Counsell C, Caie L, Pearson D, Bhattacharya S: ‘Not taken in by media hype’: how potential donors, recipients and members of the general public perceive stem cell research. Hum Reprod 2009;24:1106–1113.
26.
Kimmelman J: Gene Transfer and the Ethics of First-in-Human Research: Lost in Translation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
27.
Young NS, Ioannidis JP, Al-Ubaydli O: Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med 2008;5:e201.
28.
Fanelli D: Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US states data. PLoS One 2010;5:e10271.
29.
Tsfati Y, Cohen J, Gunther AC: The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Sci Commun 2011;33:143–166.
30.
Lawrence PA: Lost in publication: how measurement harms science. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 2008;8:9–11.
31.
Shapiro SD: The post-genomic red journal: charting the path from hope (not hype) to cure. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2003;29:425–426.
32.
Reitsma PH: No praise for folly: genomics will never be useful in arterial thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2007;5:454–457.
33.
Bubela T, Caulfield T: Role and reality: technology transfer at Canadian universities. Trends Biotechnol 2010;28:447–451.
35.
Geransar R, Einsiedel E: Evaluating online direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests: informed choices or buyers beware? Genet Test 2008;12:13–24.
36.
Vashlishan Murray AB, Carson MJ, Morris CA, Beckwith J: Illusions of scientific legitimacy: misrepresented science in the direct-to-consumer genetic-testing marketplace. Trends Genet 2010;26:259–261.
37.
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167–1170.
38.
Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky AS: Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 1998;338:101–106.
39.
Joly Y, Caulfield T, Knoppers BM, Harmsen E, Pastinen T: The commercialization of genomic research in Canada. Healthc Policy 2010;6:24–32.
40.
Caulfield T: Stem cell research and economic promises. J Law Med Ethics 2010;38:303–313.
41.
Schwitzer G: How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med 2008;5:e95.
42.
de Semir V, Ribas C, Revuelta G: Press releases of science journal articles and subsequent newspaper stories on the same topic. JAMA 1998;280:294–295.
43.
Mcinerney C, Bird N, Nucci M: The flow of scientific knowledge from lab to the lay public: the case of genetically modified food. Sci Commun 2004;26:44–74.
44.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Casella SL, Kennedy AT, Larson RJ: Press releases by academic medical centers: not so academic? Ann Intern Med 2009;150:613–618.
45.
Nielsen LH, Jørgensen NH, Jantzen K, Christensen LL: Credibility of science communication: an exploratory study of astronomy press releases. Communicating Astronomy with the Public 2007:340–345. http://hdl.handle.net/1800/1579.
46.
Brechman J, Lee C, Cappella JN: Lost in translation? A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press. Sci Commun 2009;30:453–474.
47.
Bubela TM, Caulfield T: Do the print media ‘hype’ genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research. Can Med Assoc J 2004;170:1399–1407.
48.
Brechman J, Lee C, Cappella JN: Distorting genetic research about cancer: from bench science to press release to published news. J Commun 2011;61:496–513.
49.
Condit CM, Ofulue N, Sheedy KM: Determinism and mass-media portrayals of genetics. Am J Hum Genet 1998;62:979–984.
50.
Conrad P, Markens S: Constructing the ‘gay gene’ in the news: optimism and skepticism in the US and British press. Health 2001;5:373–400.
51.
Conrad P: Genetic optimism: framing genes and mental illness in the news. Cult Med Psychiatry 2001;25:225–247.
52.
Mountcastle-Shah E, Tambor E, Bernhardt BA, Geller G, Karaliukas R, Rogers JE, Holtzman NA: Assessing mass media reporting of disease-related genetic discoveries. Sci Commun 2003;24:458–478.
53.
Nerlich B, Dingwall R, Clarke DD: The book of life: how the completion of the Human Genome Project was revealed to the public. Health 2002;6:445–469.
54.
Caulfield T, Bubela T: Media representations of genetic discoveries: hype in the headlines? Health Law Rev 2004;12:53–61.
55.
Tuchman G: Objectivity as strategic ritual: an examination of newsmen’s notions of objectivity. Am J Sociol 1972;77:670–673.
56.
Glynn CJ: Science reporters and their editors judge ‘sensationalism’. Newsp Res J 1985;6:69–74.
57.
Watts G (ed): Hype, hope and hybrids. Science, policy and media perspectives of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, Science Media Centre and Wellcome Trust, UK, 2009. http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/index.php?pid=101&puid=151.
58.
Zarzeczny A, Rachul C, Nisbet M, Caulfield T: Stem cell clinics in the news. Nat Biotechnol 2010;28:1243–1246.
59.
Gibson TA: Covering the world-class downtown: Seattle’s local media and the politics of urban redevelopment. Crit Stud Mass Commun 2004;21:283–304.
60.
Morley D: The Nationwide Audience: Structure and Decoding. London, British Film Institute, 1980.
61.
Steiner L: Oppositional decoding as an act of resistance. Crit Stud Mass Commun 1988;5:1–15.
62.
Gutteling JM: Mazur’s Hypothesis on technology controversy and media. Int J Public Opin R 2005;17:23–41.
63.
du Gay P, Hall S, Janes L, Mackay H, Negus K: Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London, Sage Publications Ltd, 1997.
64.
Fiske J: Television: polysemy and popularity. Crit Stud Mass Commun 1986;3:391–408.
65.
Condit CM: Public attitudes and beliefs about genetics. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2010;11:339–359.
66.
Bauer MW: Distinguishing red and green biotechnology: cultivation effects of the elite press. Int J Public Opin R 2005;17:63–89.
67.
Genetic Alliance: Policy Archive, 2011. http://www.geneticalliance.org/policy.statements.archive.
68.
Bonfadelli H: Mass media and biotechnology: knowledge gaps within and between European countries. Int J Public Opin R 2005;17:42–62.
69.
Rubin LC: Merchandising madness: pills, promises, and better living through chemistry. J Pop Cult 2004;38:369–383.
70.
Hogle LF: Chemoprevention for healthy women: harbinger of things to come? Health 2001;5:311–333.
72.
Fujimura JH: The molecular biological bandwagon in cancer research: where social worlds meet. Soc Probl 1988;35:261–283.
73.
Wallace HM: Big tobacco and the human genome: driving the scientific bandwagon? Genomics Soc Policy 2009;5:80–133.
74.
Hall WD, Mathews R, Morley KI: Being more realistic about the public health impact of genomic medicine. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000347.
75.
Ransohoff DF, Ransohoff RM: Sensationalism in the media: when scientists and journalists may be complicit collaborators. Eff Clin Pract 2001;4:185–188.
76.
Brumfiel G: Supplanting the old media? Nature 2009;458:274–277.
77.
Science Media Centre of Canada. http://www.sciencemediacentre.ca/smc/.
78.
Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA: What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 2009;96:1767–1778.
79.
Khoury MJ, Bown MS, Burke W, Caotes RJ, Dowling NF, Evans JP, Eyes M, St. Pierre J: Current priorities for public health practice addressing the role of human genomics in improving population health. Am J Prev Med 2011;40:486–493.
80.
Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute: Public attitudes toward science. London, 2011.
81.
National Science Board: Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, National Science Foundation (NSB 10-01), 2010.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.