Why new discoveries are over-hyped

We often hear of new scientific results that promise great things, especially in the health field, but then hear no more of them.  Most scientific ideas don’t work out.  Why, then, do we still hear the hype?

In a recent issue of the journal Science there is an article about six molecules that, in the past couple of decades, were touted as (possibly) having wonderful effects: on heart disease, on obesity, building muscle, extending our life spans.  None of them lived up to the early hype.  In this, they’re not unusual; most of the things examined for possible good effects on health (including drugs, behavior changes and other things) don’t turn out to be effective, or have undesirable side-effects.  The precentage of duds is probably much higher in biological fields than in our own familiar physics and astronomy because biological systems are so complex, doing unexpected things when we try something new.

And human health is so important to everyone that the non-science media will pick up any hint of a possible new development, generally ignoring the scientists’ qualifiers (“may,” “could,” “possibly,” “if confirmed by further work”).  On the other hand, the news that something hasn’t worked out, that a possible cure for cancer didn’t work, doesn’t get reported.  This is not because the media are deliberately trying to mislead people.  It’s just that possible great things are exciting and people want to learn about them; a drug that doesn’t pan out isn’t exciting, and people aren’t as interested.  Uninterested people don’t buy the newspaper, or look at the advertising on the web site.  The phenomenon is misleading, however, and has been dubbed “Journalistic deficit disorder.”

Scientists may deplore media hype, and try to tone down expectations, but the forces at work are strong and it’s unlikely to change much.  In fact they’re often guilty of some hype themselves, for quite understandable reasons.  Science is comptetitive, and even to get the next stage of funding a scientist must emphasize the possible good results.  A grant application stating, quite truthfully, “most things like this don’t work out, so this is a long shot,” would not be compelling.

Then why fund a long shot at all?  Isn’t there something more useful to do with the money?

We have a quote attributed to Pablo Picasso posted in the Five Colors S&T offices: “If you know exactly what you are going to do, what is the point of doing it?”  You probably wouldn’t want to apply this to the pilot of your next airplane journey or the architect designing your office building, but it’s a good question for art and science.  If you know enough that the next step entails no risks, it will also entail small benefits.  The long shots do work out sometimes, and then things change quite a lot.

And even those that don’t live up to the hype can lead to something.  Several of the six molecules in the Science article have provided useful insights into biochemistry.  It’s possible that one of them may in help lead to something big eventually.  Biology is all about the unexpected.