Believe it or not, the hype among scientists was even worse than among the public, to the point of (in my opinion) hurting good science. Everyone was shoehorning "nano" into their proposals, regardless if their work was legitimately nano[1], and that really hurt the SNR for manuscripts and grant proposals.
[1] I define nanotechnology as dealing with something sufficiently small to access properties not seen in bulk materials. For many materials, restricting one or more dimensions below 100nm will lead to side-dependent properties. There was a lot of stuff during the Great Nano Hype that was claimed to be nano, but was say 500nm—that would be "submicron".
The investment case behind it was wrong, but we got an incredible tech advance in less than 10 years.
The only real example I can think of where huge amounts of public attention actually got results was in aerospace. We actually did get to the moon. After that, I struggle to think of examples.
Even so, getting to the moon was not something that public attention and funding just 'made happen'. Luckily, it happened to coincide with the invention of microchips and computer power shrinking down enough to fit in the nose of a shuttle. All of this required incremental progress that wasn't always in the limelight. Sure, the actual moon landing phase was, but not everything leading up to it.
Also, I would say Tesla is very much in the spotlight and making progress because of it, as one example.