Scientific societies
What we can do together, and under what conditions
Where we are
No active agreements today
None, and no logos to display. Fibonacci is in its early stages: a mature product, a pilot, with the first activations in 2026. Mentioning it here costs some apparent credibility, but we’ll earn it back the day a real agreement is in place, because then it will be genuine.
If you’re reading this on behalf of a society or association, what follows is exactly what we’d propose in an initial call.
What we offer
Four things, ranked by how much we believe in them
Consent templates reviewed by those with the authority to do so
We have a catalog of procedure-specific forms. We openly state, including in the FAQs, that they are not validated by a specialist or a legal expert: the structure complies with the law, but the clinical content needs review. A scientific society is exactly the entity that can review it for its relevant procedures. The result remains public and citable, with attribution to those who contributed.
For us, it’s what matters most: it closes a weakness we currently acknowledge.
Special conditions for members
The price list is public and remains public. The terms of an agreement are defined together and written into the agreement, not in a marketing page.
No figures here: it would be a number made up before knowing who we’re talking to.
Training for members on the boring stuff
Not a product webinar: half an hour on what an informed consent should include, how to store a clinical photograph, what GDPR requires from a small practice. The product appears at the end, if at all.
We’re not an ECM provider, and we’re not promising to be one.
A channel to tell us what’s missing
Those who see a hundred practices know what we cannot. Requests from a society are added to our worklist like any others, and when something is built, we announce it.
No promises of priority we can’t keep.
What we ask
A person who responds, and time to review
A contact to discuss things with, and someone to review the consent templates for the procedures relevant to you: pointing out where they’re incorrect, vague, or incomplete. This is real work, and we treat it as such: if needed, we’ll agree on compensation for the review time, which is the cleanest and least ambiguous approach.
The rules we set for ourselves
So an agreement doesn’t become an improper incentive
The code of medical ethics prohibits physicians from subordinating their professional conduct to undue advantages and bans agreements that influence prescriptions. Practice management software is not a patient-facing act, so there is room for it. But the boundary is thin, and we prefer to define it ourselves before someone asks us to.
Nothing tied to how many patients you treat
If one day there’s financial recognition tied to an agreement, it can only depend on subscription activations. Never on the number of procedures, patients, or products used: that would be an incentive influencing clinical behavior, which the code of ethics prohibits.
Transparency, and the ability to declare it
The code of ethics requires physicians to declare any conflicts of interest. An agreement should make this easy, not complicate it: the terms remain written and can be shown.
No clinical endorsement in exchange for conditions
A society can review a document and state it has done so. We don’t ask them to recommend software to their members as a scientific act, and we don’t pay to be recommended.
What we don’t do
Three requests we say no to
- Paying to be recommended to members.
- Displaying a logo on this site without a written and current agreement.
- Linking any recognition to the number of procedures or patients.