The Problem With Science Communication

Can’t wait for this video to appear in a news article saying “Theoretical physicist confirms that iPhones are more powerful than a quantum computer.”

Scientists : "Our discoveries are useless if taken out of context" Journalist : "Scientists claim their discoveries are useless"

This is actually one of your most important videos

This exact thing happened to me personally a year ago. I am studying mechanical engineering and last year I partecipated to a competition where me and my team proposed a way to improve energy production at gas pressure reduction facilities, using waste heat. We won the first round of this competition in Prague, then a second one in Munich, and finally we were also invited to present our idea to representatives of the EU parliament. Everyone liked our idea and we were so hyped! Then, when we actually visited a pressure reduction station and made deeper calculations together with real engineers, we got to the conslusion that our idea was not that efficient and there was no prospect of a real application:( I think this story is the perfect example of the problem of hyping science discoveries... but hey, I enjoyed my stay at the EU parliament:)

I do want to revisit one of the examples that's mentioned in the video: I actually have massive respect for the faster than light neutrinos people. They put their paper out there not with a press release saying they'd found faster than light neutrinos, but with an appeal to the community. In the material surrounding the paper, they said that they'd been looking for an error for months and hadn't yet found one, so they were publishing in an effort to get help from the community to find their mistake. In the conclusion to their paper, they specifically said that they refused to speculate about the implications because they thought the result was a mistake. Now, this is largely consistent with your broader point that science reporting and science communication has a problem with overhyping things: If even a paper released with multiple statements from the researchers that it's probably wrong and that the only reason they're publishing is to make sure they're in a position to get as much help as possible from the community gets reported as proof that physics as we know it is wrong, and then a few months later when the researchers do find their mistake the correction doesn't get the attention it needs, well, that's a problem. But I do want to give all credit to those researchers, because they did the right thing. They were fully transparent. They were using the scientific publication system to try to have a conversation to solve a problem, which is one of the things that it's supposed to do.

I love that “overhyping” has apparently become the formal term for this phenomenon

I'd like to submit that the LK99 drama, while driven by awful forces, was actually good for science in the public's eye. It was the will they/won't they of the month. Every report that came from a different lab got dissected by the fandom within minutes. THE PUBLIC CARED ABOUT REPRODUCTION STUDIES WITHOUT EVEN REALIZING IT! 🤣

I'm a scientist, and do freelance science journalism on the side. This video is exactly what I find myself thinking about. I only ever write stories when I am 100% convinced that the science is solid, and the result newsworthy. For that reason I never write far beyond my area of expertise. Sure sometimes I cover topics that are scientifically perhaps not so novel, but are interesting for others to read about, for example, people are dying for exoplanet news, they will gobble up absolutely anything you have to offer. However I never write about something that stinks or feels off. I could do this anyway, only read abstracts, pitch whatever article I think can get into a newspaper regardless of its scientific merits, and I'd probably triple my earnings. I'd never do that though, and for that reason my side hobby will never be financially rewarding enough to write articles at a high frequency. I hope that being thorough like this will one day pay off...

You are so right. Medical research reporting is the same: the more nonsensical, the more hype, the more publicity.

If I remember correctly, the faster than light neutrino was published with the strongest possible warning. They basically said "this is probably wrong but we checked every way we can possibly think of so there's nothing left to do but publish it and hope someone else can figure out why we're wrong." And someone did.

This is probably one of the most important (if not the most important) videos Veritasium has ever made. To my opinion, the issue with the attitude towards science is very important and relevant. Mass media shows science as a fairytale and something which is light years away from everyday life of ordinary people, therefore there is no understanding of what’s happening in the world of science. By this I mean that the whole comprehension of a science field even on a pure amateur level can be represented as a large puzzle consisting of millions of pieces. When viewers are for example told that somebody had created a wormhole somewhere, they get only when deformed piece in an unknown field of the large puzzle, that’s why nobody wants to even try to figure out the entire puzzle. A certain scientific field can get public attention only if people at least understand what they observe. I think that such consistent, thorough, informative, interesting and at the same time very entertaining videos that Derek’s team has been doing are the wonderful thing that can help people finally obtain the desire to know things about the world, but I think for years this great channel needed an episode that would also explain the situation not in a particular topic, but would raise a very important problem related to the comprehension of science by the audience of mass media and social networks. I think this video is now successfully carrying out this mission. Thank you Veritasium’s team for doing such great work! You always have my respect ❤

This is why i get hopeful, but also supremely guarded when i hear things in mainstream science media. when my friends and i talk about it, I say, "I hope it is true" and "i want it to be true, but i will wait for more evidence." people sometimes think i am either a killjoy, emotionless, or conversely supremely intellectually wise and measured. I am not any of those things. I have just been through this some many times that i know to wait for more information before i let myself get excited. The let down of some things that came before was exceedingly painful.

Ironically the pressure to make science more incredible than it is, makes it actually in-credible in the public's eye in the long run.

As a cancer physician dealing with patients who see these types of overhyped news articles of a “cancer breakthrough” as literally life or death it is incredibly difficult managing expectations that arise from these sorts of science (mis)communication. I encourage us all to deliver the needed peer review in comments sections of these sorts of articles!

I wrote a thesis on science communication because of my curiosity and interest in science, but as a mass communication student... Couldn't quite identify the issues as clearly as you just did. This is great, much respect.

I was in a Electricity and Magnetism course when the faster than light neutrino story happened. I was excited to read about it until our teacher talked to the class about it and basically said it isn't worth believing until its replicated.

I'm a PhD student suffering from this stupid competition to publish more papers. I can clearly see how this policy is stopping me from doing thoughtful research. We should value comments on papers more than ever. This is the only way to make some people understand there is a penalty for publishing poor research.

One of my professors made it very clear that science is a cumulative process and that a single paper will almost never individually prove anything. It is the multiyear, multidecade, even multicentury growth of scientific knowledge that gives us a view into what is actually likely to be true.

This video reassured how much I would love to watch you talking about how science is made including point of views like Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" or Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method"

Two of my favourite physicists in one video! What a great chat between Derek and Carlo ❤ Also loved the fact it highlights the issue of so many exaggerated news out there... brilliant!