Recommendations of the Ethics Committee of the French Research Institute for Development on Crowdfunding: Potential and Limits (notice n° 526042)
[ vue normale ]
| 000 -LEADER | |
|---|---|
| fixed length control field | 02152cam a2200229 4500500 |
| 005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION | |
| control field | 20250121101904.0 |
| 041 ## - LANGUAGE CODE | |
| Language code of text/sound track or separate title | fre |
| 042 ## - AUTHENTICATION CODE | |
| Authentication code | dc |
| 100 10 - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Blanchard, Antoine |
| Relator term | author |
| 245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT | |
| Title | Recommendations of the Ethics Committee of the French Research Institute for Development on Crowdfunding: Potential and Limits |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. | |
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. | 2016.<br/> |
| 500 ## - GENERAL NOTE | |
| General note | 17 |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. | |
| Summary, etc. | 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. |
| 690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN) | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | citizen science |
| 690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN) | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | ethics |
| 690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN) | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | research |
| 690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN) | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | institutional arrangement |
| 690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN) | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | peer review |
| 700 10 - ADDED ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Sabuncu, Elifsu |
| Relator term | author |
| 786 0# - DATA SOURCE ENTRY | |
| Note | Natures Sciences Sociétés | 24 | 2 | 2016-08-29 | p. 154-159 | 1240-1307 |
| 856 41 - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS | |
| Uniform Resource Identifier | <a href="https://shs.cairn.info/journal-natures-sciences-societes-2016-2-page-154?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080">https://shs.cairn.info/journal-natures-sciences-societes-2016-2-page-154?lang=en&redirect-ssocas=7080</a> |
Pas d'exemplaire disponible.
Réseaux sociaux