2.4 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Funding by lottery | 2/2 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_by_lottery | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T09:52:55.911338+00:00 | kb-cron |
=== Arguments in favor === 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. 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 – as well as bias against interdisciplinary research. 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. 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". By decoupling grant acquisition from academic prestige, funding by lottery could help mitigate such incentives for misconduct.
=== Arguments against === 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. 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. Second, randomization could weaken quality-based selection, creating incentives to submit lower-quality proposals, and ultimately leading to a decline in quality standards. 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.
== See also == Funding of science Peer review Science policy
== References ==