Fashion in science

Within the scientific domain the variation in topics is extreme. Distribution of human resources among topics can be however nonstrategic and depends on various economic, cultural, and geopolitical influences. Under certain conditions, this can give rise to scientific 'hypes' or 'hot topics'. In this piece, some more background on the phenomenon.

Disclaimer: This article reflects the opinion of the author only. The article aims to rise general awareness, and does not target specific topics, organizations, or people.

1. What is a hype?

The major complication underlying the 'hype' phenomenon in science is the difficulty to identify, describe, or quantify it. Nevertheless, let's try to establish some criteria.

Disproportionate academic attention

The first and largest criterion is a disproportionate amount of attention to a specific topic. Again the difficulty remains: disproportionate compared to what? How to quantify this?

Link with commercialization

For applied sciences, the disproportionate academic attention could be compared to the commercial or industrial attention a topic is attracting. In this way, the scientific efforts (hence community resources) can be balanced with the societal value.

Quantification of the application potential of science

​ For those applied sciences, a potential descriptor to express the value and societal value or need of a topic may be the ratio between industrial and academic attention. This could be quantified by dividing the number of patent filings on a topic to the number of academic publications on the same topic. The associated hypothesis would then be: The higher this 'application ratio', the higher the societal value.

Low scientific hurdles

Another potential contribution to a scientific hype is the absence of the need to be a genius. Some applied sciences can be based on a 'trail and error' type of experimental approach, enabling in principle any sound project manager to contribute. In contrast, some of the more fundamental disciplines may require hardcore know-how that limits scientific accessibility. 

High experimental turnover

When large amounts of data can be attained on a very short notice, the attractiveness to join a research topic is greatly enhanced.
Combining such ease of experimental output with low scientific hurdles is when things start to get tricky...

Giving the people what they want

Whenever a topic can be 'sold' easily and meets (potentially skewed) societal interests, it will attract a lot of scientific attention.  Especially when the above 2 conditions are also met, the birth of a hype may be hard to to avoid.

 Critical experts

Within a hot topic, there will be loads of people working. However, the amount of true experts (those working on it before the mass attention) may be low. Moreover, these purists are often very critical of the bulk of the work produced.

Exponential rise

The attention paid to a hot topic often proceeds via an exponential trend. This can be for example visualized in the amount of papers published per year.

Temporary?

In principle one would assume that the attention to hot topics should, like fashion trends, come and go. This is however hard to quantify, as the overall amount of scientific output is strongly increasing in general.

2. Advantages of hypes

Of course, there are a number of advantages of working on a hot topic.

Easy to establish topic

Firstly, the broad attention a hot topic receives makes it hard to miss the ongoing efforts and easy to join the topic. Moreover, potentially low scientific hurdles make it even easier to join.

Active community 

The large and very productive community will ensure to get loads of citations of your work. This will lead to a clear boost in the rankings. This is especially clear when compared to a non-hot topic.

Straightforward to get funding

Assuming the type of hype enables to 'giving the people what they want', it will be relatively easy to get funded and start working on it too.

3. Disadvantages of hypes

Naturally, several disadvantages of working on hot-topics exist.

Potential waste of community resources

First and foremost, a disproportionate scientific investment in a topic implies a lower scientific value. As such, hot topics run the risk of wasting of community resources.

Ever changing topics: Lack of expertise

As researchers may jump from one hot topic to another, the build up of expertise is inhibited. This risks the generation of a plethora of quasi-experts.

Limited valorization potential

The potential skewed ratio between academic attention and commercial relevance inhibits the valorisation of results. This in turns may hamper innovations as for example less starts-ups may follow.

Risk of missing out: stress

The very productive society may pressure scientists to publish more and faster. Besides potentially reducing quality, it also tends to increase the stress levels.

Of course, for those stressed: check out the ScienceFunArts contribution on scientific stress.

Take me there!

Lack of fulfillment

Finally, one could also simply start to feel that what he/she is doing does not matter (too much). Hence, working on a hype may lower one's sense of (scientific) fulfillment.

4. Causes of hypes

Hypes are not a coincidence. Several factors may aid to there presence and persistence...

The scientific wheel: pressure to publish

The lack of academic permanent positions make that only the best remain. This can be good as long as the right qualifications are used. Often, the key descriptor to identify 'the best' is the number of publications. This increases the pressure to publish, and directly fuels the hype mechanism...

Principles of funding

In many countries, scientific groups are for the larger part based on performance-based grants. This further raises 'publication fever' as an important criterion for getting a grant is the number of publications. When funding is also allocated based on mass hysteria instead of rational and strategic discussion-making, an unbalanced distribution of scientific activity results.

Outsider unawareness

A fundamental factor building up to a hypes is that it is often completely unworkable for the outsider to get a clear picture of what is going on. Especially when these persons are in high-level positions and they are susceptible to the masses, nonstrategic educational choices may follow.

Limited scientific freedom

A possible disadvantage of the funding mechanism based on specific grants is that it curtails scientific freedom. On the one side, the context of the grant does prevent deviation of efforts in the wrong direction. However, it may also prevent to spend efforts on potentially more valuable topics.

Ill-founded societal pressure

Especially in a democracy the voice of the public can be strong. Whereas this has led to great progress for mankind, it can be detrimental when the public is miss/partially or even completely uninformed. Especially, if the public manages to influence key decision makers.

5. For (PhD) Students: Working on a hype?

Suppose you are think you may be working on a hot topic. What can or should you do about it?

Enjoy the ride

First of all, a student often starts his work in relative ignorance of the topic and being in the midst of a hype may be simply bad luck. One could choose therefore to simply carry on and proceed anyways.

Address the elephant

The more politically-active student may still try to mention the underlying concerns regarding the research topic in his work. This would at least raise awareness. 

​Solve or address major limitations

A limited application potential is often associated with a general fundamental problem. Ambitious and often impossible, the pro-active student may try to solve it... Still, assuming a large mass working on the topic, you might be fighting thermodynamics...

Prove value alternatives

Alternatively, the more confrontational student may try to prove to his/her supervisor that superior alternatives to reach the target may exist. Be aware that you may not get very popular...

Become expert

Finally, one could choose to simply keep working on the topic and become an expert after several years. In this manner the chances of eventually solving the core fundamental problems may become within the realm of slightly realistic.

6. A biased example

Based on the experiences of the author, an example of a potential hot topic is provided. Of course, the author has a pronounced preference for one the two presented materials and is therefore biased. I leave it up to the reader to judge on which 'camp' the author resides... ;)

Academic history

The comparison here comprises two families of crystalline materials: zeolites and metallo-organic frameworks (MOFs). For both families the same amount of scientific publications are dedicated per year currently. Can you guess which material follows the trend of a potential hype?
(Source: www.scopus.com)

Patent history

The second important criterion is the application of the materials judging by the amount of patent filings. Which curve seems to be resembling the one of a hype?
(Source:patents.google.com)

Application ratio

By evaluating the application ratio, the commercial potential can be clearly quantified and compared. One is ever increasing, the other approaching zero.

7. Conclusion

Fashion trends also occur in the scientific arena and can be quantified for certain disciplines. Of course, the number of publications and patent filings are only one way to look at topics and data, and one should of course always try to keep the bigger picture in mind.  

Outlook

The value of science remains hard to quantify. Trying to do so may even hamper scientific freedom and thereby inhibit progress. Still, as the bigger picture remains blurry to most, it is the scientist's responsibility to provide it in the most quantitative and clear fashion possible.