Our discussion on HIFA has explored how researchers can communicate their research 'effectively' to policymakers with increased impact. Unfortunately we have learned that effective communication (as defined by impact on policy and practice) is not always positive. There are multiple examples where researchers have 'pushed' questionable and sometimes fraudulent findings into policy and practice, with negative impact on public health.
This news item draws attention to how researchers can 'hype' their research for the purpose of attracting new funding. (withthanks to WAME newsletter)
https://www.statnews.com/2022/08/30/science-grant-nih-hype-application/
"Unprecedented! Incredible! Scientific grant applications are getting heavier on hype...130 out of 139 hype adjectives increased in prevalence by an average of over 1,300% percent in successful applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health between 1985 and 2020."
“Novel.” “Exciting.” “Incredible.” “Devastating.” “Unprecedented.” You name the adjective, and a scientist has probably stuck it into a grant application to score funding.
In semi-official scientific parlance, they’re known as “hype.” And adjectives like these are becoming more common in grant applications, according to a new study. The research, published in JAMA Network Open, found that 130 out of 139 hype adjectives increased in prevalence by an average of over 1,300% percent in successful applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health between 1985 and 2020. Words like “novel,” “critical,” “sustainable,” and “actionable” saw the greatest increases in use...
The hype adjectives were organized into broad categories based on their meaning: importance, novelty, rigor, scale, utility, quality, attitude, and problem. Those conveying a proposal’s importance and novelty increased the most over the decades...
Grant money, which at academic institutions can fund much more than the research that earned it, is a major incentive for researchers. Bringing money to a university can create more opportunities and favorable treatment in an extremely competitive field. That structure may encourage applicants to use certain language to inflate the worth of their research...
As a linguist who now spends so much time studying hype, Millar said he’s become hyper-sensitive about superfluous adjectives, “to the point that it’s a bit silly.” He certainly wouldn’t be caught describing his own findings as “daunting” or “unprecedented.”
COMMENT: The same could be said about the hype adjectives used in published papers, or about the way a researcher presents their findings at a meeting or conference. Unfortunately, those who shout loudest (or who use the most compelling language) are typically seen as the most 'effective' communicators and have the most impact, but they also have the largest potential to distort policy decision-making processes.
Neil Pakenham-Walsh, Global Coordinator HIFA, www.hifa.org neil@hifa.org
Global Healthcare Information Network: Working in official relations with WHO
