| Attributs | Valeurs |
|---|
| type
| |
| Is Part Of
| |
| Subject
| |
| Title
| - Avis du Comité consultatif de déontologie et d’éthique de l’IRD sur le crowdfunding : intérêt et limites
|
| Date
| |
| has manifestation of work
| |
| related by
| |
| Author
| |
| Abstract
| - In June 2013, the Ethics Committee of the French Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) issued a recommendation on crowdfunding that constitutes de facto the first official position of a French research organization on this matter. While crowdfunding is becoming an additional source of funding for research projects, this recommendation highlights two ethical concerns: the lack of peer reviewing and the capacity to manipulate donors using marketing claims and empty promises. Our commentary puts this recommendation into perspective, by building on a body of work in peer review ethics and science communication, as well as on some case studies of crowdfunding in science. Thus, we show the novelty of the request for peer review based on the primum non nocere principle, contradicting evidence that ideological biases in peer review may oppose society needs for research. As a matter of fact, a funding agency such as the US National Science Foundation has implemented a “Second Merit Review Criterion” to assess impacts of research on society. As for marketing claims, we show that the whole field of science has become a “business of expectations” and that any funding application or scientific publication should be wary of empty promises. Finally, we conclude by comparing crowdfunding with classical fundraising campaigns for biomedical research.
- Le Comité consultatif de déontologie et d’éthique (CCDE) de l’Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) a publié en juin 2013 un avis qui constitue, de fait, la première prise de position officielle d’un établissement de recherche français au sujet du crowdfunding. Le financement participatif apparaissant de plus en plus comme une potentielle source de fonds pour des projets de recherche, cet avis en trace deux limites éthiques : l’absence d’évaluation par des pairs et la possibilité de manipuler les donateurs par un discours marketing et des promesses sans fondements. Notre commentaire remet cet avis en perspective à partir de travaux existants consacrés à l’éthique du peer review et de la communication scientifique, et de quelques études de cas du crowdfunding en science.
|
| article type
| |
| publisher identifier
| |
| Date Copyrighted
| |
| Rights
| - © NSS-Dialogues, EDP Sciences 2016
|
| Rights Holder
| - NSS-Dialogues, EDP Sciences
|
| is part of this journal
| |
| is primary topic
of | |
