Scientific Hype in Quantum Science and Technology

Promoting research in science communication is a fine line to walk. In order to justify allocating funds towards a particular research domain, we have to explain the potential applications and economic opportunities that may grow from a given research project. On the other hand, overstating or exaggerating the importance or possibilities can undermine trust in scientific research or create economic bubbles. This overestimation, or hype, is cropping up as an issue in many fields of research. This post will introduce the idea of hype generally and discuss how it plays a role in shaping opinions and the scientific landscape of quantum computing.

What is Hype?

The principal motivations for science communication are to inform the public of the most accurate information available to empower informed decision-making and to motivate interest and trust in science. Motivating interest and trust helps researchers secure the necessary resources to continue doing research, but efforts to generate public interest can cross the line into hype when science communication becomes a misrepresentation of science and impedes the dissemination of accurate information in favor of generating public interest.

Kristen Intemann does a wonderful job of exploring the nuances of hype in science communication in her work Understanding the Problem of Hype: Exaggeration, Values, and Trust in Science. In broad strokes, she presents hype as a form of exaggeration, which can be either explicit or implicit. Explicit exaggeration happens when figures are inflated resulting in misrepresentation of the confidence or power of a given study, or a misrepresentation of the results or applications of a study. Implicit exaggeration is the omission of key contextual facts that are critical for understanding the significance or strength of a scientific study.

In the case of either implicit or explicit hype, the result is the same: it de-prioritizes the communication of accurate information, eventually leading to a misinformed public and decision-makers and misplaced resources.

Quantum Hype for Financial Gain

Quantum Science and Technology (QST) is a domain where hype is a particular concern. By nature of fundamentally non-intuitive principles like superposition, entanglement, and uncertainty, QST requires expertise to navigate the physical underpinnings of the applications that are emerging. Because of this, people can use information to mislead investors and customers for financial gain.

On his blog PostQuantum, Marin Ivezic provides a deep dive on what he calls "quantum snake oil". For consumers, the quantum snake oil dictionary from PostQuantum provides a host of terms use to mislead stakeholders, as well as questions that can help people navigate this deceptions.

Beyond misleading marketing schemes, and what is perhaps more damaging, is the general approach in the quantum trade media, which promotes misleading practices and floods the market with so much misinformation that fact-checking becomes difficult for non-experts. As part of the Quantum Snake Oil deep dive, Ivezic highlights the role of science communication, and the pattern of amplifying baseless or exaggerated claims without verification and expert input. This pattern, in Ivezic's view, boils down to four main contributing factors:

• Non-domain experts making extraordinary claims

• Press releases instead of peer-reviewed papers

• Commercial events as the real-time driver

• The quantum trade media's failure to filter

These four components create a communication field where hype is a prominent way to compete for market share that remains unchecked by academic peer-review processes, consultation with independent experts, or commercial penalties for exaggeration.

Undermining Trust in Quantum Science and Technology

Unfortunately, the trend of hype does not exist only in the commercial world. Researchers are under pressure to publish ground-breaking work in order to secure job stability; grants for future work; talented teams, participation in science councils and governance boards; and global recognition, such as prizes and honorary positions. Furthermore, research does not happen in a vacuum and is often done in collaboration with commercial entities leading to conflicts of interest. Taken together, it becomes evident that researchers are susceptible to the culture of hype that is surrounding their work.

In the interest of securing resources, many researchers themselves tend to exaggerate the potential of their applications or overstate the significance of their work. Prof. Antonio Togni calls this "orchestrating relevance" in his paper discussing exaggerations of relevance in the introductory section of scientific articles reporting original research. Orchestrated relevance often includes projecting the importance of a project into a context that is much too broad to make a clear link; an exaggeration of the problem that the work intends to resolve; and comparison to others' work in a field that focuses on relative improvements. Though instances of hype in this category are not as flagrant as fraud, the fact that this way of communicating research is so common leads to a increased tolerance of hype amongst academics.

Researchers' implicit biases define what they accept as typical or normal. Creating a culture of hype results in researchers' propensity to follow suit with the rest of their peers in order to compete for the same funding pools, prizes, students, etc. which can erode the standards of objective reporting. In some cases, these biases may lead to misinterpretation of scientific results, failure to test competing hypotheses, and therefore communication of questionable results.

The most notable case is the Majorana quasiparticle, a theoretically possible case that has been the center of significant quantum computing controversy. The communication around the Majorana controversy is the most relevant to this discussion of hype. After a 2018 retracted paper, Nature again published the work of a Microsoft-led team on the Majorana 1 describing a device architecture that could potentially host topological qubits.

The saga continues with the announcement of Majorana 2. For those interested in a response to Majorana 1 from researchers, the timeline of events in the case, or an analysis of the situation, feel free to consult these references.

Though the science is itself the root of a raging debate, the communication of the progress is where the discussion of hype becomes important: the Microsoft press release about Majorana 1 vastly overstated the progress. Though the paper presented the potential of a topological qubit, and stated that the results did not guarantee the presence of Majorana quasiparticles, the Microsoft press release stated that the Majorana 1 was "the world’s first quantum chip powered by a new Topological Core architecture that it expects will realize quantum computers capable of solving meaningful, industrial-scale problems in years, not decades". This vast overstatement insinuated that the topological states had been irrefutably observed and integrated into a functioning quantum processor.

Microsoft, as an industry leader in computing, has acted recklessly in their communication of quantum achievements, but they are not the only ones. Capybara Research released a report of Quantum Computing Inc. revealing a scheme of fraudulent activity rooted in misleading press releases. On a larger scale, the Springer journal Optical and Quantum Electronics retracted over 200 articles in under two months in 2024 according to Retraction Watch. These specific and broad cases are evidence of a research communication culture that is highly competitive, and, even worse, competing against over-blown claims. The trajectory of hype must be cooled down for QST to sustain real progress.

Though quantum mechanics is one of the most successful scientific theories, defined by it's capability of explaining a wide range of natural phenomena, a disproportionate amount of misinformation has the potential to lead to a "quantum winter". A quantum winter is a period marked by decreased funding and progress in QST. Often this comes when the real progress – which I must emphasize is happening – is unable to fulfill promises made by the hype culture.

Moving Forward

The real progress in QST is exciting enough on its own. Researchers in quantum computing have managed to isolate single electrons and manipulate them, managed to find multiple material platforms for qubits, and are improving qubit readout and error correction by the day. These milestones are often overlooked in the ocean of buzz-words and "quantum snake oil".

Though I focused on QST in this article, it is not the only field susceptible to hype and the erosion of standards in science communication. Science communicators should take the necessary steps to avoid propagating unrealistic expectations and misinformation. The best ways to mitigate hype in science communication are to:

• Stick to the facts

• Consult with experts before publishing

• Provide context, especially when it is important for understanding the significance of results

The most critical point is to act – and to publish – with integrity.