How a scientist tells the story of their research is often just as important as the research itself. Take the title of this 2002 paper in Nature: “Rat navigation guided by remote control.” It grabs your attention instantly – and it certainly made me click!
The study behind that headline is elegant but more conventional. Scientists implanted three electrodes into each rat’s brain: one in the reward pathway and two in areas that respond to left or right whisker touches. By stimulating these regions, the researchers guided the rats’ movements. A zap to the left-side whisker area made the rat turn left; a zap to the right made it turn right. Stimulating the reward region encouraged the rat to move forward. Using these signals together, the team could direct the rats through a complex obstacle course with steps, climbs, and even jumps.
The researchers ended their paper by suggesting that such “guided rats” could serve as living robots, ideal for search-and-rescue or landmine detection. You can imagine the sensational headlines: “Mind-controlled robo-rats developed for the military!” That certainly wasn’t how the scientists saw their own work. In later research, many of these same authors focused on how the brain controls movement to help patients recover from spinal injuries and neurological diseases. In fact, the methods they pioneered laid early groundwork for modern deep brain stimulation therapies that now help patients with Parkinson’s disease regain the ability to walk.
Still, that original title mattered. If they had gone with something more technical—say, “Focal brain stimulation for rapid virtual contingency learning and real-time guided navigation”—the study likely wouldn’t have gotten the same attention (or been published in Nature at all). Yet that title would have been a truer reflection of what the scientists actually did: teaching rats to respond to brain signals, not mind control.
It also might have been more honest about what the experience felt like for the rats. We can’t truly know, of course, but simple brain stimulations in sensory regions probably feel a bit like being tapped on your left or right hand to signal direction. The “go forward” signal, which activates the brain’s reward circuit, might feel like a tiny burst of pleasure, like from eating a piece of candy. In effect, the experiment was more like training a dog with cues and treats than performing mind control.
Now let’s fast-forward to 2014, when a different kind of “behavioral control” made headlines, though you might not realize it from the title alone. This PNAS paper was called “Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks.” Not exactly clickbait. But rephrase it as “Manipulating the emotional tone of social media feeds changes how users behave,” and the goals become clearer.
In this study, Facebook researchers quietly changed what about 600,000 users saw in their News Feeds. Some users saw fewer positive posts; others saw fewer negative ones. They then measured how this change affected how users posted. When people saw fewer positive posts, they wrote more negatively themselves, and vice versa. In addition, when emotional content was reduced overall, users posted less. The researchers framed this as evidence for “emotional contagion,” the idea that emotions spread socially, even online.
But scientists who read about this study brought up important ethical concerns. None of the users consented to having their feeds manipulated. The researchers justified it by noting that the study complied with Facebook’s Data Use Policy, which they claimed counted as “informed consent.” That reasoning falls far short of standard protections for research participants: virtually all academic institutions in the U.S. are required by law to get approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure subjects’ rights are protected. Facebook had no such oversight, since as a private company, its experiments are bound only by its own legal terms of service, fine-print that few users ever read.
When news of this study broke, both researchers and members of the general public were alarmed. The journal eventually issued an “Expression of Concern,” acknowledging that even if the research was technically legal, it might not align with ethical standards for informed consent or participants’ ability to opt out.
Here again, the story told by the paper shapes how we think about it. The authors cast their work as an academic investigation into emotional contagion. But when you dig deeper, it’s also a business optimization study. Buried in the paper is a telling line: their effects “would have corresponded to hundreds of thousands of additional emotional expressions in status updates per day.” For a company whose profits depend on engagement, that finding has obvious value. After all, they also found that when emotional posts were suppressed, people posted less, by up to 4 percent! In business terms, the takeaway is stark: to keep users engaged, maximize emotional content.
So, who benefits from calling that “emotional contagion” instead of “behavior manipulation”?
Both these examples – the Nature study on rats and the PNAS study on Facebook users – show the power of storytelling in science. A catchy title can turn an exploration of motor learning into a headline about mind control, while an abstract title can mask a social experiment with ethical and commercial implications. How we frame and tell the story of research shapes not just how it is understood, but how it will be remembered.
All 2 Soon 