Quantum science is often surrounded by bold promises, revolutionary materials, unhackable communication, and computing power beyond today’s supercomputers. But behind these claims lies a more complex reality.

A study led by researchers from NUS Communications and New Media found that many quantum physicists openly admitted using some degree of hype. Not to deliberately exaggerate their work, but as a strategy for survival in an increasingly competitive academic environment where funding, publications and visibility are often at stake.

Published in Nature in 2025, the study showed that hype is rarely driven by scientists alone, but is instead fuelled by key actors such as big corporations and media. While this excitement can attract initial attention and investment, the scientists themselves warn that excessive hype risks creating unrealistic expectations and eroding public trust in science.

In science communication, hype is the use of promotional, exaggerated language to overstate benefits, certainty, safety, or future impact. It can also involve simplifying or sensationalising research, creating unrealistic optimism or pessimism.

To better understand scientists’ attitudes towards hype, the researchers conducted online focus group discussions with 24 quantum physicists working at an international research centre in the United Arab Emirates. The participants represented a range of nationalities and career stages.

Today, the academic environment is more competitive than ever. Success in research is linked to the ability to secure grants, which often pressures scientists to present their work in the most exciting manner possible. This can involve writing a persuasive abstract, introduction, or grant proposal that emphasises significance and potential applications, to “sell” the importance of their research to reviewers and funders.

Some participants said that without joining the “hype train,” it can be difficult to publish in prestigious journals or build a career. Participants also described colleagues who felt compelled to produce attention-grabbing papers in prestigious journals like Nature to remain competitive in their fields. This often results in a degree of “hypeness” and exaggeration in scientific writing, such as highlighting strong interest, novelty, or transformative potential.

Who drives hype

While scientists openly admitted to using hype, the study revealed that hype is also produced collectively by a network of actors.

Large technology companies, for example, are seen as hype engines, that promote breakthroughs, and investments to generate excitement around emerging technologies related to their business. Marketing teams, communication departments of research centres as well as journalists have been known to translate technical research into compelling narratives for broad audiences.

Meanwhile, social media platforms like Twitter and YouTube tend to reward enthusiasm, exaggeration, and simple narratives, encouraging researchers to emphasise dramatic or oversimplify aspects of their research.

When hype goes south

Despite its strategic value, hype comes with significant risks. One of the most significant consequence of hype is the withdrawal of funding if promised results cannot be delivered.

As results fall short of expectations, funding agency and investor confidence may be eroded, and support withdrawn or directed towards projects or fields with seemingly greater promise (hype or not). At the same time, public trust may be eroded. When scientific promises fail to deliver, people may question whether public funding for research is worthwhile.

To the public with limited scientific understanding, hype can lead to misguided hope, confusion, fear, disappointment and even apprehension especially when they struggle to distinguish between genuine progress and exaggerated promises or risks.

For example, in quantum computing, “Media narratives often emphasise catastrophic scenarios, such as the idea that quantum computers will “break the internet” by rendering encryption obsolete. While this is theoretically grounded, it is frequently presented without sufficient attention to timelines or ongoing mitigation strategies, which amplifies public anxiety,” study author, Associate Professor Maria Teresa Soto-Sanfiel said.

Similarly, during the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), newspapers and media hype amplified fears of black holes appearing when the device was activated, while the actual risks were not clearly or effectively communicated. “Such outcomes were either impossible or entirely harmless,” Associate Professor Soto-Sanfiel explained. “Many reports did include reassurances from scientists. However, these were often presented alongside more dramatic narratives, which can have a stronger emotional impact and are more likely to be remembered.”

A delicate balance

Despite these challenges, the study does not suggest eliminating hype entirely. The participants recognised that some level of excitement is necessary to engage audiences and attract support.

The key is to manage expectations. Science communication plays a crucial role in shaping how research is understood by the public, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Clear and responsible communication across all platforms is essential for maintaining trust.

The study helped to shed light on scientists’ attitudes and behaviours toward hype and calls for further investigations into the factors that shape hype practices.