17

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.