Science and the Sources of Hype

Caulfield, Timothy; Condit, Celeste M.

doi:10.1159/000336533

Cited by 116 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 126 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, readers more on the periphery of PM-related news stories, encountering only shorter articles that describe PM using fewer words and less detail, are probably exposed to more favorable or optimistic representations of PM than those reading longer, more detailed analyses. Again, this plays into the hyping associated with PM, 26 which, as a result, has the potential to create not only unrealistic expectations 14 but could lead to an erosion of trust and/or enthusiasm surrounding science more generally. 27 The primary limitation of our study was in our choice of search terms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24 Finally, some have suggested that an emphasis on PM may result in an inappropriate shift from public health initiatives to those focused on the individual. 5,25 Because a large body of research has detailed issues concerning the hype 26 and overly optimistic portrayals of biomedical research, 27 a primary analytical focus of this study was to assess the degree to which PM has been portrayed as beneficial in light of the concerns also being raised.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Representing a “revolution”: how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine

Marcon

Bieber

Caulfield

2018

Genetics in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Representing a “revolution”: how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine

Marcon

Bieber

Caulfield

2018

Genetics in Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[67]. Overall, publishers journals, reviewers, funding agencies, department heads, and the media all reward extravagant claims and confirmatory bias and outright hype [68].…”

Section: Does Death Matter Anymore In Psychosocial Research Predictinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are we witnessing the decline effect in the Type D personality literature? What can be learned?

Coyne¹,

Voogd²

2012

Journal of Psychosomatic Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oAfter an unbroken series of positive, but underpowered studies seemed to demonstrate Type D personality predicting mortality in cardiovascular disease patients, initial claims now appear at least exaggerated and probably false. Larger studies with consistently null findings are accumulating. Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues can be raised concerning the construction of Type D personality as a categorical variable, whether Type D is sufficiently distinct from other negative affect variables, and if it could be plausibly assumed to predict mortality independent of depressive symptoms and known biomedical factors, including disease severity. The existing literature concerning negative affect and health suggests a low likelihood of discovering a new negative affect variable that independently predicts mortality better than its many rivals. The apparent decline effect in the Type D literature is discussed in terms of the need to reduce the persistence of false positive findings in the psychosomatic medicine literature, even while preserving a context allowing risk-taking and discovery. Recommendations include greater transparency concerning research design and analytic strategy; insistence on replication with larger samples before accepting "discoveries" from small samples; reduced confirmatory bias; and availability of all relevant data. Such changes would take time to implement, face practical difficulties, and run counter to established practices. An interim solution is for readers to maintain a sense of pre-discovery probabilities, to be sensitized to the pervasiveness of the decline effect, and to be skeptical of claims based on findings reaching significance in small-scale studies that have not been independently replicated.© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. IntroductionMany "discoveries" turn out to be exaggerated or simply false across diverse research areas and disciplines. John Ioannidis [1] provoked concern with his demonstration that of the 49 most cited clinical research studies in major journals, replications of 34 had been attempted, and 41% of key findings had been refuted or shown to be substantially diminished. In a subsequent paper [2] he offered evidence that "most claimed research findings are false" and he and others [3-6] have since identified some mechanisms by which discoveries appear in the literature and then undergo a decline or refutation. Claims of breakthrough discoveries frequently arise in small positive studies that would seem to be too underpowered to detect an effect, and the inadequate sample size makes findings all the more attention grabbing.Yet, portrayals in the literature of such "discoveries" ignore the larger context of a strong confirmatory bias in published research papers, with unknown numbers of negative findings not being published and findings being declared discoveries simply because of having achieved an arbitrary level of significance. Moreover, statistically significant findings in small studies are nece...

show abstract

“…These findings are striking given the enthusiasm for science and technology among our respondents, the general public's enthusiasm for screening 28 and their tendency to 'buy into' the messages emanating from scientists, media and commercial interests 'hyping' the promises of science and genomics. 36 Indeed, such enthusiasm was demonstrated in a recent study that reported parental interest in WG/ES-based NBS, based on the perception that WG/ES-based screening would be more accurate. 37 There are many potential explanations for our findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing discussion on the use of whole-genome or exome sequencing (WG/ES) in newborn screening (NBS) has raised concerns regarding the generation of incidental information on millions of infants annually. It is unknown whether integrating WG/ES would alter public expectations regarding participation in universal NBS. We assessed public willingness to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with current NBS. Our secondary objective was to assess the public's beliefs regarding a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS compared with current NBS. We examined self-reported attitudes regarding willingness to participate in NBS using a cross-sectional national survey of Canadian residents recruited through an internet panel, reflective of the Canadian population by age, gender and region. Our results showed that fewer respondents would be willing to participate in NBS using WG/ES compared with NBS using current technologies (80 vs 94%, Po0.001), or perceived a parental responsibility to participate in WG/ES-based NBS vs current NBS (30 vs 48%, Po0.001). Our findings suggest that integrating WG/ES into NBS might reduce participation, and challenge the moral authority that NBS programmes rely upon to ensure population benefits. These findings point to the need for caution in the untargeted use of WG/ES in public health contexts.

show abstract

Science and the Sources of Hype

Cited by 116 publications

References 126 publications

Representing a “revolution”: how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine

Representing a “revolution”: how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine

Are we witnessing the decline effect in the Type D personality literature? What can be learned?

Public views on participating in newborn screening using genome sequencing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About