Lottery-based funding is an innovative procedure for allocating funds for scientific research, introducing elements of randomness into the project selection process. Although it is still a relatively new practice, it is gaining attention as a potential solution to the limitations of the traditional peer-review system.
Traditionally, research funds are allocated through competitive calls, in which experts evaluate proposals and select the most promising ones. In contrast, lottery-based funding introduces an element of chance into the process. There are two main modalities:
- Full lottery: All eligible proposals have an equal chance of being funded, with no involvement from review panels.
- Partial lottery: Only proposals that pass an initial evaluation enter a draw to determine which will receive funding.
To date, all known implementations have been of the partial type.
Historical Origins
The idea of using lotteries to allocate resources is not new. In 14th-century Florence, a system was used to select public officials that combined an initial evaluation with random selection. In the scientific realm, Daniel S. Greenberg proposed in 1998 that lotteries be used to allocate research funds, arguing that, given the high degree of uncertainty and subjectivity in evaluations, randomness could offer a valid and more efficient alternative.
Types of Partial Lotteries
There are various ways to implement partial lotteries:
- Tie-breaker lotteries: When multiple proposals receive the same score at the funding threshold, a lottery is used to decide which ones are funded.
- Bypass lotteries: Proposals are classified as unfundable, fundable, and outstanding. Outstanding proposals receive direct funding, while fundable ones enter a lottery.
- Fundable-group lotteries: Proposals are divided into fundable and unfundable. The fundable group enters a lottery to determine which receive funds.
Organizations such as the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Volkswagen Foundation have experimented with these modalities.
Academic Debate
Lottery-based funding has sparked intense debate within the scientific community.
Arguments in Favor
- Reduction of bias: Randomness may mitigate evaluation biases, such as preferences for conventional research or prestigious institutions.
- Encouragement of innovation: With less pressure to conform to traditional criteria, riskier and more creative projects could be funded.
- Efficiency: It may reduce the time and resources dedicated to proposal preparation and evaluation.
- Equity: Offers equal opportunity to researchers from diverse backgrounds and institutions.
Arguments Against
- Research quality: Random selection could lead to the funding of weaker or less relevant projects.
- Loss of feedback: Peer review provides valuable feedback that helps improve proposals.
- Public perception: The use of lotteries could undermine trust in the scientific funding system.
- Lack of evidence: There is still insufficient research to demonstrate that this method improves scientific outcomes.
Examples
Lottery-based funding, mostly in the form of partial lotteries, has been practiced or tested in several countries. Notable examples include:
- New Zealand
The Health Research Council of New Zealand has implemented a partial lottery system since 2015 for some of its research grants. Proposals that pass a basic evaluation enter a draw to determine which are funded. - Switzerland
The Swiss National Science Foundation has used a lottery method to break ties between equally ranked proposals. - Germany
The Volkswagen Foundation launched a pilot program in which proposals deemed «fundable» entered a lottery to receive funding, as part of its effort to support innovation and reduce bias. - Austria
The Austrian Science Fund has explored similar models to encourage high-risk and innovative proposals.
These experiments have typically been conducted as pilots or in specific areas of funding (e.g., high-risk projects, postdoctoral fellowships, or innovation programs).
