Full text
Making Sense of Hype in Funding: A Quantum Technologies Case Study S. E. Skelton Institute for Theoretical Physics, University Leibniz Hannover Sept. 10 2025
Motivation Common ideal 1: we should direct science in socially beneficial and equitable research directions Common ideal 2: research grants are distributed through a rational preference for one proposal over another Can we identify pathways for hype to enter in academic research funding? ▶Performative hype vs rational hype ▶Near-application vs basic research funding Key question: are there possible opportunity costs to the discipline or to the funder? 1 22
Plan for the talk 1. Hype in STS and phil-sci for near-application research 2. Performative hype in grant applications ▶Researchers need to anticipate and distill their research for an expert adjacent audience ▶Use of expectant discourses, incl. technology by extrapolation (TbE) ▶Introduce epistemic mirage, a specific pathway to hype 3. Case studies in quantum technologies 2 22
Hype and Funding
Phil-sci intuitions of grants Crucial site of influence between academic research and society is grants Priorities of granting agencies will push research in a ’funding friendly’ direction Researchers tell society what they can do, and society tells researchers what it should do 3 22
Phil-sci intuitions of grants Crucial site of influence between academic research and society is grants Priorities of granting agencies will push research in a ’funding friendly’ direction Researchers tell society what they can do, and society tells researchers what it should do 3 22
Classifying research Does the near-application vs basic dicotomy hold up? The distinction is commonly used in public rhetoric for grant agencies, so we will keep it around basic (Beest 2021) applied physics research 4 22
scientific hype: phil-sci Scientific hype is usually understood as a science communication problem Intemann: “best understood as a particular kind of exaggeration, one that explicitly or implicitly exaggerates various positive aspects of science in ways that undermine the goals of science communication in a particular context. ” (2022) Hype in funding is historically been considered through publication pressure (Caulfield and Condit 2012) 5 22
Scientific hype: STS Performative perspective: identifiable rhetoric, intent (Bareis et al, 2023) Hype is an expectant discourse/language/rhetoric, specific goals (Smith, 2020) Ethical judgments of hype are contested (Master & Resnik, 2013; Robertson et al, 2023; Brown, 2003) performative rational knowably wrong ? yes intentional yes ? This talk: when does performative hype rise to the level of rational hype, due to a mismatch of speaker-hearer expectations? 6 22
TbE definition Definition Technology by extrapolation is an appeal to the uncanny success of previous unstructured research projects (usually in the same academic discipline). Researchers emphasize the broad and long term possible outputs of their research. They also invoke distant and dubious applications to their topic. 12 22
TbE Traits Far-off applications, broadly defined applications Disciplines with a high degree of disagreement/uncertainty A standard of very unsupervised/loosely structured funding 13 22
TbE is expectant discourse Is TbE actually unique? Similar expectant discourse in grants found in qualitative research “Acts of creative expression that exposes the inconsistencies and absurdities of new public management... more than the moral failings of their authors” (Chubb and Watermeyer, 2017) Core feature we need is, collective participation by reviewers and writers TbE in basic research could be a great example of inert expectant discourse..what about new contexts? 14 22
Epistemic Mirage Definition Say that researcher Alice writes a good faith description, using discourse A to anticipate and distill the social merit of her proposal, and sends it to reviewer Bob, who uses discourse B to interpret it. Bob is epistemically miraged if he radically misunderstands the timeline and/or feasibility of applications of Alice’s work, and he would have understood it the same way as Alice if he had used A to interpret Alice’s statement. 15 22
Notes Epistemic mirage may be difficult for scientists to internally combat Can’t reviewers detect this? ▶Usually, but interdisciplinary reviewing is difficult ▶Subtle differences in definitions lead to different conclusions ▶Missed presumed context Misunderstandings of expectant discourse can rise to the level of unintentional rational hype 16 22
Quantum Technologies
Enter quantum Computers, sensing, communication Risk factors: interdisciplinary, uncertain, widely applicable Quantum has many (possible) long-term sustainability benefits (Rejeski, 2022) Figure: (Balamurugan et al 2024) 17 22
Moonshot research TbE acceptable statement: I will study materials simulations for batteries with a NISQ algorithm” ⇒”I am exploring novel battery design“ Project A: toy models of material simulations Maybe replicate known estimates Project B: try to run that on better hardware...might have to wait Project C: if you get good results, study how those identified materials can be integrated into technology Project D: If that works, spin the design out into a commercial product 18 22
Goal-oriented funding: sustainability IPCC 2023: funding to move from R&D phase to science is a key obstacle Opportunity cost when the funder has concrete, narrow goals ”Moonshot” funding, in the guise of near-application funding 19 22
Pessimists vs Optimists Optimist view: push for early adaption of SDG’s (Alabaster et al 2024, Paudel et al 2022), use funding glut to direct research towards SDG Pessimist view: opportunity cost of focusing on quantum solutions, hype risk The problem centers on scarcity of time, expertise, and funding Emperically addressable: uncertainty about where funding is coming from Expertise remains an oppertunity cost 20 22
Acknowledgments Thanks for your attention! 22 / 22
