Recommendations of the Ethics Committee of the French Research Institute for Development on crowdfunding: potential and limits Avis du Comité consultatif de déontologie et d’éthique de l’IRD sur le crowdfunding : intérêt et limites En Fr

Résumé En Fr

In June 2013, the ethical committee of the French Institut de recherche pour le développement (IRD) published a recommendation on crowdfunding that constitutes de facto the first official position of a research organization on this topic in France. As crowdfunding becomes an additional source of funding for research projects, said recommendation highlights two ethical concerns: the absence of peer review and the ability to manipulate donors using marketing claims and empty promises. Our commentary puts this recommendation into perspective, by building on a body of work in ethics of peer review and science communication, as well as some case studies of crowdfunding in science. Thus, we show that their call for peer review based on primum non nocere principle is new, and contradicts evidence that ideological biases in peer review can 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 of science has become a “business of expectations” and any funding application or scientific publication should beware of empty promises. Finally, we conclude by comparing crowdfunding with classical donation 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.