Overpromising in science and technology: An evaluative conceptualization

Stefan Gaillard; Cyrus Mody; Willem Halffman

doi:10.14512/tatup.32.3.60

Authors

Stefan Gaillard Institute for Science in Society, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen (NL) https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1956-7325 stefan.gaillard@ru.nl
Cyrus Mody Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht (NL) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5266-5878 c.mody@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Willem Halffman Institute for Science in Society, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen (NL) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1800-5884 w.halffman@science.ru.nl

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.32.3.60

Keywords:

conceptualization, evaluation, overpromising, promises, signaling

Abstract

This research article examines overpromising in scientific discourse that may raise unrealistic expectations in order to gain trust and funding. Drawing on signaling theory, philosophy of promising, and science communication research, a conceptualization of overpromising is presented. This conceptualization facilitates the evaluation of promises in science and technology and highlights the importance of the knowledge context. Further research is needed to explore the broader dimensions and motivations for overpromising.

References

Bazerman, Charles (1988): Shaping written knowledge. The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Booker, Richard; Boysen, Earl (2011): Nanotechnology for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bordignon, Fréderique et al. (2023): Nano bubbles. How, when and why does science fail to correct itself? https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7993122

Bucchi, Massimiano (1998): Science and the media. Alternative routes to scientific communications. New York, NY: Routledge.

Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2023): Contract with the EU and project start. Available online at https://ufm.dk/en/research-and-innovation/funding-programmes-for-research-and-innovation/eu-and-international-funding-programmes/horizon-europe/counselling/the-successful-application-to-horizon-europe/contract-with-the-eu-and-project-start, last accessed on 27. 10. 2023

De Wilde, Rein (2000): De voorspellers. Een kritiek op de toekomstindustrie. Amsterdam: De Balie.

Drexler, Eric (1986): Engines of creation. The coming era of nanotechnology. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday.

Driver, Julia (2011): Promising too much. In: Hanoch Sheinman (ed.): Promises and agreements. Philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377958.003.0007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377958.003.0007

Eisler, Matthew (2012): Overpotential. Fuel cells, futurism, and the making of a power panacea. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Epstein, Richard (ed.) (2013): The fundamentals of argument analysis. Essays on logic as the art of reasoning well. Socorro: Advanced Reasoning Forum.

Fischer, Nele; Dannenberg, Sascha (2021): The social construction of futures. Proposing plausibility as a semiotic approach for critical futures studies. In: Futures 129, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102729 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102729

Foster, Lynn (2006): Nanotechnology. Science, innovation and opportunity. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.

Gambetta, Diego (2011): Signaling. In: Peter Hedström and Peter Bearman (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of analytical sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 168–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199215362.013.8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199215362.013.8

Gilbert, Nigel; Mulkay, Michael (1981): Contexts of scientific discourse. Social accounting in experimental papers. In: Karin Knorr, Roger Krohn and Richard Whitley (eds.): The social process of scientific investigation. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 269–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9109-5_11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9109-5_11

Gilbert, Nigel; Mulkay, Michael (1984): Opening Pandora’s box. A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Khadkikar, Surendra; Irani, Erach (2006): Method of attaching nanotubes to bacteria and applications. Patent ID US20060024810A1. Available online at patents.google.com/patent/US20060024810A1/en, last accessed on 30. 10. 2023.

Levine, Matt (2018): The blood unicorn Theranos was just a fairy tale. In: Bloomberg, 14. 03. 2018. Available online at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-14/theranos-misled-investors-and-consumers-who-used-its-blood-test, last accessed on 30. 10. 2023.

Lucivero, Federica; Swierstra, Tsjalling; Boenink, Marianne (2011): Assessing expectations. Towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. In: Nanoethics 5 (2), pp. 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0119-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0119-x

Markovits, Daniel (2011): Promise as an arm’s-length relation. In: Hanoch Sheinman (ed.): Promises and agreements. Philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 295–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377958.003.0013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377958.003.0013

Mische, Ann (2009): Projects and possibilities. Researching futures in action. In: Sociological Forum 24 (3), pp. 694–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01127.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01127.x

Mody, Cyrus (2006): Small, but determined. Technological determinism in nanoscience. In: Joachim Schummer and Davis Baird (eds.): Nanotechnology challenges. Implications for philosophy, ethics and society. Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 95–130. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812773975_0006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812773975_0006

Mongillo, John (2007): Nanotechnology 101. Westport: Greenwood.

Parkhill, Richard (2008): Assurance and Scanlon’s theory of promises. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 108 (1pt3), pp. 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2008.00253.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9264.2008.00253.x

Rand, Ayn (1984): Philosophy. Who needs it. New York, NY: Signet.

Rip, Arie (2006): Folk theories of nanotechnologists. In: Science as Culture 15 (4), pp. 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430601022676 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430601022676

Scanlon, Thomas (1990): Promises and practices. In: Philosophy and Public Affairs 19(3), pp. 199–226.

Sheinman, Hanoch (ed.) (2011a): Promises and agreements. Philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377958.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377958.001.0001

Sheinman, Hanoch (2011b): Introduction. Promises and agreements. In: Hanoch Sheinman (ed.): Promises and agreements. Philosophical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377958.003.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377958.003.0001

Smalley, Richard (2001): Of chemistry, love and nanobots. In: Scientific American 285 (3), pp. 76–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0901-76 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0901-76

Stoye, Emma (2020): How research funders are tackling coronavirus disruption. In: Nature News, 17. 04. 2020. Available online at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01120-2, last accessed on 27. 10. 2023.

White, Michael (2017): Why scientists make promises they can’t keep. In: Pacific Standard, 03. 05. 2017. Available online at https://psmag.com/news/scientists-make-promises-cant-keep-93544, last accessed on 27. 10. 2023.