Researchers oversell their results for publishing and funding purposes. Then the university oversells those results to draw in students/investors.
Curious if others feel the same way or if I'm just too cynical at this point...
The non-cynical version: Half of a researcher's job is disseminating results -- to other researchers & the populace at large. I'd much rather have excited university announcements (even over-reaching ones) than the rage-porn news that dominates the airwaves & "mainstream news" homepages.
Besides: Any serious researcher will just revert to the actual peer-reviewed source material. It was linked in the article. Here it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-023-01680-4
And here's the PDF: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.24.477527v2....
As someone who has peripheral knowledge in this space (piezeoelectric & magnetostrictive devices and neural stimulation & recording): I've never seen a magnetostrictive material capable of developing a DC bias. Further, driving the device in a non-resonant mode for neural stimulation is even more new to me -- that's quite fascinating, and I'd say that article lives up to the hype from my 1000-ft vantage. I.e. This was effective reporting.
at a minimum, this isn’t far off
Is this true? I left academia a long time ago, but I'd be surprised if it's that good. I'd actually suspect it's the inverse and only 30% can be replicated.