Hold research institutions responsible for exaggerated press releases and cut public research funding for repeat offenders
In short
- Universities and research institutes put out a press release only after the person who wrote the paper has checked it.
- Every press release must state what is still unknown and where the research falls short.
- An institute that repeats serious exaggeration loses part of its public research funding.
- The institute that issued the release is responsible, not the individual researcher.
If this comes true
At a pharmacy in town, a customer who saw the news asks whether a new treatment can cure their illness, and the pharmacist calmly points to the line in the press release that says "So far, this is only a result in animals," and explains.
Perhaps
Research institutions afraid of being blamed might hold back their announcements altogether, and important discoveries made with tax money might lie asleep, unknown to anyone.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This applies to press releases about research results that universities and research institutions receiving public research funding send out to newspapers, TV, and the internet. Before a release goes out, the researcher who wrote the paper checks the content and signs their name. In set fields, the release states whether the study involved people or was still at the animal or cell stage, how many subjects were examined, whether it showed cause and effect or only a link, and what is still unknown. The public bodies that hand out research funds set up an independent review panel, separate from the bodies that investigate research misconduct, to look into mismatches between a press release and the paper. Reviews begin with complaints from reporters, citizens, and other researchers, and with spot checks of randomly chosen releases. If there is serious exaggeration, such as stating an effect the paper does not show, the institution is asked to publish a correction. An institution that repeats serious exaggeration within a set period has part of its public research funding for the next period cut, specifically the portion that goes to running the organization. Individual researchers' funds are not cut. Articles that news organizations write on their own are outside the scope.
BenefitsExaggeration stops paying, and the words of science can be trusted
This proposal reduces the very reasons research institutions have to exaggerate. If grabbing attention with an overblown release risks losing research funding, an institution's public relations staff will choose a modest, accurate way of writing. Requiring the researcher's own check brings the eyes of the person who knows the paper best into the release, and prevents unintended overstatement. By stating the stage and limits of the research in set fields, reporters and readers can see right away how far the study actually goes. If the original release is careful, exaggeration is also less likely when a reporter writes the headline. People can avoid hoping too much and being let down, or spending money on treatments that do not work. Above all, if news from science stops being wildly hit or miss, people will find it easier to listen when a truly serious warning arrives, such as about an infectious disease or climate change. Because responsibility falls on the institution rather than the individual researcher, young researchers are also spared from being intimidated into silence.
DrawbacksFewer announcements, and fights over what counts as exaggeration
If institutions fear losing research funding, they might cut back on announcements altogether. New discoveries by nature come with a range of certainty. If institutions become too careful and results that society should learn about quickly become harder to get out, the distance between science and people could actually grow. Also, where to draw the line between exaggeration and legitimate hope is something experts themselves disagree on. If the review panel is strict toward a particular theory or field and lenient toward another, it could harm the freedom of research. There is also a risk that climate or infectious disease research, which draws political attention, could be hit by a concentrated flood of complaints, and the review could be used as a tool for harassment. Set fields in a press release could also make the writing stiff and hard to read, and fail to draw people's interest. Furthermore, since much exaggeration arises in news articles and online posts, correcting only the press releases might not reduce the exaggeration in the information people actually see as much as expected.
Learn the background
Research on new medicines, foods, space, and climate reaches many people through the news. But the story that reaches them is often much bigger than the original paper. A drug that only worked in animals is reported as curing a disease, and a food that was merely linked to something is declared good for the body. When you trace where the exaggeration comes from, it is often not only how reporters wrote it but the press release itself from the university or research institution. Research institutions have reasons to make results look big, because attention brings donations, research funds, and students. Exaggerating brings no penalty, and writing modestly brings no reward. When hopes are betrayed again and again, people stop trusting science itself, and even truly important warnings get ignored. Calls to improve how science is communicated have gone on for a long time, but as long as the system that makes exaggeration pay stays the same, calls alone will not stop it.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes