funding by lottery

Science funding is generally distributed through competitive funding calls organized by research funding agencies (commonly referred to as "funders").{{Cite book |last=Agar |first=Jon |title=Science in the twentieth century and beyond |date=2012 |publisher=Polity |isbn=978-0-7456-3470-8 |edition=Online-Ausg |series=History of science |location=Cambridge}} Eligible researchers submit research grant proposals in response to these calls, which are then evaluated by expert peer review panels.{{Cite book |last=Lamont |first=Michèle |title=How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment |date=2010 |publisher=Harvard Univ. Press |isbn=978-0-674-05733-3 |edition= |location=Cambridge, Mass.}} Funding is typically awarded to the proposals that receive the most positive evaluations from these panels.{{Cite journal |last=Avin |first=Shahar |date=2019-08-01 |title=Mavericks and lotteries |journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A |volume=76 |pages=13–23 |doi=10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.11.006 |pmid=31558205 |bibcode=2019SHPSA..76...13A |issn=0039-3681|doi-access=free }}

Compared to this traditional, peer-reviewed science funding, funding by lottery fully or partly replaces peer review panel evaluations with random selection. In a full lottery, all eligible research grant proposals have an equal chance of winning the grant, with no input from a peer review panel. In a partial lottery, only eligible proposals that are positively evaluated by the peer review panel are entered into the lottery and have a chance to win the grant.

While some researchers advocate for the funding of science by means of full lotteries, at least for specific funding calls, all known examples of funding lotteries implemented by funders are partial lotteries.

The selection mechanism behind funding by lottery has historical roots in the scrutiny and lot, a sortition system established in 14th-century Florence.{{Cite book |last=Najemy |first=John M. |title=Corporatism and consensus in Florentine electoral politics, 1280-1400 |date=1982 |publisher=University of North Carolina press |isbn=978-0-8078-1506-9 |location=Chapell Hill}} Similar to contemporary funding by lottery, candidates in scrutiny and lot were first screened for eligibility, and then eligible individuals were randomly selected for political office. The motivation for using randomization is also comparable: in peer review, randomization is proposed as a way to reduce biases and prevent the concentration of funding in a few prestigious labs or research institutions.{{Cite journal |last1=De Peuter |first1=Steven |last2=and Conix |first2=S. |date=2022-07-04 |title=The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2021.1927727 |journal=Accountability in Research |volume=29 |issue=5 |pages=324–345 |doi=10.1080/08989621.2021.1927727 |issn=0898-9621 |pmid=33970719}} In Florentine sortition, randomization was designed to curb the concentration of political power among affluent families.

In the context of science funding, funding by lottery was first proposed by Daniel S. Greenberg in 1998. Greenberg argued that winning a grant in a competitive funding call is largely a matter of luck – an intuition that was later corroborated by empirical research, showing that peer review panels often struggle to distinguish among proposals around the funding line.{{Cite journal |last1=Bornmann |first1=Lutz |last2=Leydesdorff |first2=Loet |last3=Van den Besselaar |first3=Peter |date=2010-07-01 |title=A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1751157709000789 |journal=Journal of Informetrics |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=211–220 |doi=10.1016/j.joi.2009.10.004 |arxiv=0911.3558 |issn=1751-1577}}{{Cite journal |last1=van den Besselaar |first1=Peter |last2=Sandström |first2=Ulf |last3=Schiffbaenker |first3=Hélène |date=October 2018 |title=Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports |journal=Scientometrics |language=en |volume=117 |issue=1 |pages=313–329 |doi=10.1007/s11192-018-2848-x |issn=0138-9130 |pmc=6132964 |pmid=30220747}} Because the evaluations by peer review panels are so unreliable, Greenberg argued, a lottery would be an equally valid but more cost-effective method to allocate funding.

The idea remained theoretical until the 2010s, when a few funders began piloting the implementation of partial lotteries. Early adopters included the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the New Zealand Science for Technological Innovation, and the Volkswagen Foundation. These early experiments with partial lotteries were later followed by other Western funders, particularly for calls aimed at supporting transformative, innovative, blue skies, or high-risk, high-reward research.{{Cite journal |last=Shaw |first=Jamie |date=December 2023 |title=Peer Review, Innovation, and Predicting the Future of Science: The Scope of Lotteries in Science Funding Policy |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy-of-science/article/peer-review-innovation-and-predicting-the-future-of-science-the-scope-of-lotteries-in-science-funding-policy/780541A102BC4DF6FA2F87BDF0FAC256 |journal=Philosophy of Science |language=en |volume=90 |issue=5 |pages=1297–1306 |doi=10.1017/psa.2023.35 |issn=0031-8248}}

Funding by lottery can be implemented in different ways.{{Cite journal |last=Shaw |first=Jamie |date=2023-01-01 |title=Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion |url=https://academic.oup.com/rev/article-abstract/32/1/86/6780169?login=false |journal=Research Evaluation |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=86–100 |doi=10.1093/reseval/rvac022 |issn=0958-2029}} In practice, all funding lotteries used or in use by funders are partial lotteries, meaning that a peer review panel is in charge of evaluating proposals for merit and suitability, and randomization is introduced to assist in the final funding decision among positively evaluated proposals. Types of partial lotteries currently in use are: tie-breaking lotteries, partial lotteries "with bypass", and fundable-pool partial lotteries.

In tie-breaking partial lotteries, research grant proposals are first ranked by a peer review panel, and funding is awarded to the best-rated proposals. However, when multiple proposals receive the same evaluation at the funding threshold – meaning that the panel cannot distinguish among them – random selection is used to break the tie.

Funders using tie-breaking partial lotteries in all or some of their calls include the Swiss National Science Foundation,{{Cite web |title=Drawing lots as a tie-breaker |url=https://www.snf.ch/en/JyifP2I9SUo8CPxI/news/news-210331-drawing-lots-as-a-tie-breaker |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) |language=de}} Natural Environment Research Council (UK),{{Cite web |date=2024-09-23 |title=UKRI response to the review of peer review |url=https://www.ukri.org/publications/ukri-response-to-review-of-peer-review/ukri-response-to-the-review-of-peer-review/ |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=www.ukri.org |language=en-GB}} Research Council of Norway,{{Cite web |last=Oct 2022 |first=Published 16 Aug 2022Last updated 12 |title=Researcher Project for Technological Convergence Related to Enabling Technologies |url=https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/call-for-proposals/2022/researcher-project-technological-convergence/ |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=www.forskningsradet.no |language=en}} and Science Foundation Ireland.{{Cite web |title=Innovate for Ireland Programme |url=https://www.sfi.ie/funding/funding-calls/innovate-for-ireland/ |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=Science Foundation Ireland |language=en}}

Partial lotteries "with bypass" rely on peer review panels to evaluate research grant proposals and categorize them as not fundable, fundable or outstanding. Not fundable proposals are declined. Fundable proposals enter the lottery pool. Outstanding proposals bypass the lottery and receive direct funding.

Funders using this implementation include the Volkswagen Foundation,{{Cite web |title=Partially Randomized Procedure - Lottery and Peer Review {{!}} VolkswagenStiftung |url=https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/funding/peer-review/partially-randomized-procedure-lottery-and-peer-review |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=www.volkswagenstiftung.de |language=en}} Austrian Science Fund,{{Cite web |title=Disruptive Innovation – Early Career Seed Money |url=https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/funding/disruptive-innovation |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=www.oeaw.ac.at |language=en-US}} and Novo Nordisk Foundation.{{Cite web |title=Q&A: A Randomized Approach to Awarding Grants |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/q-a-a-randomized-approach-to-awarding-grants-69741 |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=The Scientist |language=en}}

In fundable-pool partial lotteries, peer review panels evaluate research grant proposals and categorize them as either fundable or not fundable. Proposals deemed not fundable are declined, whereas those classified as fundable enter a lottery pool for random selection.

Adopters of fundable-pool partial lotteries include the Health Research Council of New Zealand,{{Cite web |date=2020-02-04 |title=New paper shows support for lottery funding allocation {{!}} Health Research Council of New Zealand |url=https://www.hrc.govt.nz/news-and-events/new-paper-shows-support-lottery-funding-allocation |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=www.hrc.govt.nz |language=en}} New Zealand Science for Technological Innovation, Canadian [https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/nfrf-fnfr/index-eng.aspx New Frontiers in Research Fund],{{Cite web |date=2023-11-22 |title=Peer review - not perfect but still the best system that we have |url=https://erc.europa.eu/news-events/magazine-article/peer-review-not-perfect-still-best-system-we-have |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=ERC |language=en}} and The British Academy.{{Cite web |date=2025-01-23 |title=Grants awarded by lottery popular with minority, junior scholars |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/grants-awarded-lottery-popular-minority-junior-scholars |access-date=2025-03-25 |website=Times Higher Education (THE) |language=en}}

Surveys conducted in New Zealand and Germany suggest that researchers have mixed opinions on funding by lottery. Respondents seem to be more supportive of partial lotteries than full lotteries. In peer-reviewed articles and opinion pieces, scholars have outlined key arguments in favor and against the use of funding by lottery.

The main argument in favor of funding by lottery is that randomization can help reduce the costs of grant writing and peer review while promoting fairer and more diverse funding outcomes.{{Cite journal |last=Roumbanis |first=Lambros |date=2019-11-01 |title=Peer Review or Lottery? A Critical Analysis of Two Different Forms of Decision-making Mechanisms for Allocation of Research Grants |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0162243918822744 |journal=Science, Technology, & Human Values |language=en |volume=44 |issue=6 |pages=994–1019 |doi=10.1177/0162243918822744 |issn=0162-2439}}{{Cite journal |last=Avin |first=Shahar |date=2018-03-01 |title=Policy Considerations for Random Allocation of Research Funds |url=https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars/article/view/8626 |journal=RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation |language=en |volume=6 |issue=1 |doi=10.13130/2282-5398/8626 |issn=2282-5398}}{{Cite report |url=https://rori.figshare.com/articles/report/Why_draw_lots_Funder_motivations_for_using_partial_randomisation_to_allocate_research_grants_RoRI_Working_Paper_No_7_/17102495/2 |title=Why draw lots? Funder motivations for using partial randomisation to allocate research grants (RoRI Working Paper No.7) |last1=Woods |first1=Helen Buckley |last2=Wilsdon |first2=James |date=2021-12-08 |publisher=Research on Research Institute |doi=10.6084/m9.figshare.17102495.v2 |language=en}} More specifically, funding by lottery may curb or eliminate biases in research evaluation, such as reviewer conservatism – i.e. the tendency to favor conventional ideas over more innovative or riskier ones{{Cite journal |last=Brezis |first=Elise S |date=2007-12-01 |title=Focal randomisation: An optimal mechanism for the evaluation of R&D projects |url=https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/34/10/691/1620015?redirectedFrom=fulltext |journal=Science and Public Policy |volume=34 |issue=10 |pages=691–698 |doi=10.3152/030234207X265394 |bibcode=2007SciPP..34..691B |issn=0302-3427}}{{Cite journal |last=Gillies |first=Donald |date=2014-05-28 |title=Selecting applications for funding: why random choice is better than peer review |url=https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars/article/view/3834 |journal=RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation |language=en |volume=2 |issue=1 |doi=10.13130/2282-5398/3834 |issn=2282-5398}} – as well as bias against interdisciplinary research.{{Cite journal |last1=Heyard |first1=Rachel |last2=Ott |first2=Manuela |last3=Salanti |first3=Georgia |last4=Egger |first4=Matthias |date=2022-12-31 |title=Rethinking the Funding Line at the Swiss National Science Foundation: Bayesian Ranking and Lottery |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2022.2086190 |journal=Statistics and Public Policy |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=110–121 |doi=10.1080/2330443X.2022.2086190|arxiv=2102.09958 }}

Furthermore, funding by lottery is seen as way to counteract the growing concentration of research funding in the hands of few renowned labs and research-performing institutions, a phenomenon known as the "Matthew effect" in science funding.{{Cite journal |last=Merton |first=Robert K. |date=1968-01-05 |title=The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.159.3810.56 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=159 |issue=3810 |pages=56–63 |doi=10.1126/science.159.3810.56 |pmid=5634379 |issn=0036-8075}}{{Cite journal |last1=Bol |first1=Thijs |last2=de Vaan |first2=Mathijs |last3=van de Rijt |first3=Arnout |date=2018-05-08 |title=The Matthew effect in science funding |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=115 |issue=19 |pages=4887–4890 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1719557115 |doi-access=free |pmc=5948972 |pmid=29686094|bibcode=2018PNAS..115.4887B }}

Lastly, some have argued that funding by lottery could remove some incentives for research misconduct. Because grant acquisition is considered a marker of academic success, researchers may feel pressured to obtain as much funding as possible. In extreme cases, this can lead to unethical practices, like submitting virtually identical research grant proposals to multiple funding calls – a problem known as "double-dipping".{{Cite journal |last1=Garner |first1=Harold R. |last2=McIver |first2=Lauren J. |last3=Waitzkin |first3=Michael B. |date=January 2013 |title=Same work, twice the money? |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/493599a |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=493 |issue=7434 |pages=599–601 |doi=10.1038/493599a |pmid=23364724 |issn=1476-4687}} By decoupling grant acquisition from academic prestige, funding by lottery could help mitigate such incentives for misconduct.

Some scholars highlight the lack of empirical evidence supporting the claimed benefits of funding by lottery, particularly its potential to reduce costs and bias. Others argue that less drastic reforms to peer review could address its shortcomings more effectively.{{Cite journal |last=Bedessem |first=Baptiste |date=2020-04-01 |title=Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer review for the funding of science |url=https://academic.oup.com/rev/article-abstract/29/2/150/5678703 |journal=Research Evaluation |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=150–157 |doi=10.1093/reseval/rvz034 |issn=0958-2029}}

Furthermore, critics of funding by lottery identify additional potential drawbacks. First, eliminating peer review panels, or reducing their role, would deprive applicants of valuable feedback that helps improve and refine their ideas and study designs.{{Cite journal |last1=Reinhart |first1=Martin |last2=and Schendzielorz |first2=Cornelia |date=2020-12-07 |title=The lottery in Babylon—On the role of chance in scientific success |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23299460.2020.1806429 |journal=Journal of Responsible Innovation |volume=7 |issue=sup2 |pages=S25–S29 |doi=10.1080/23299460.2020.1806429 |issn=2329-9460}} Second, randomization could weaken quality-based selection, creating incentives to submit lower-quality proposals, and ultimately leading to a decline in quality standards.{{Cite journal |last=Beattie |first=Andrew |date=2020-01-23 |title=Grant lottery is bureaucratic short-cut |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00133-1 |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=577 |issue=7791 |pages=472 |doi=10.1038/d41586-020-00133-1 |pmid=31965105 |bibcode=2020Natur.577..472B |issn=0028-0836}}

In addition, adopting funding by lottery could undermine the legitimacy of funders and their peer review panels, potentially damaging public trust in peer review and the scientific enterprise as a whole.

• Funding of science
• Peer review
• Science policy

Category:Grants (money)

Category:Science policy

Category:Peer review