Selecting applications for funding: why random choice is better than peer review
AbstractA widely-used method of research funding is through competitive grants, where the selection of which of the applications to fund is made using anonymous peer review. The aim of the present paper is to argue that the system would work more efficiently if the selection were made by random choice rather than peer review. The peer review system has defects which have been revealed by recent criticisms, and the paper gives one such criticism due to the Nobel prize winner Sir James Black. It is then shown, in support of Sir James' position, that the use of anonymous peer review leads to a systemic bias in favour of mainstream research programmes and against minority research programmes. This in turn leads to the stifling of new ideas and of innovation. This thesis is illustrated by the example of the recent discovery of the cause of cervical cancer – a discovery which has generated substantial profits for pharmaceutical companies. It is then shown that selection by random choice eliminates this systemic bias, and consequently would encourage new ideas and innovation
Black, Sir James (2009) The Business of Science in the Pharmaceutical Industry, (Unpublished Paper)
Clarke, Bo (2011) Causality in Medicine with particular reference to the viral causation of cancers. PhD thesis. University College London.
Frey, Bruno S. and Steiner, Lasse (2014) God does not play dice, but people should: random selection in politics, science and society. Working Paper. Available at http://www.crema-research.ch/papers/papers14.htm. Last accessed 9 March 2014
Gillies, Donald (2008) How Should Research be Organised? College Publications.
GlaxoSmithKline (2011) Annual Report.
Goodheart, Clyde.R. (1973) ‘Summary of informal discussion on general aspects of herpesviruses’, Cancer Research, 33(6), p. 1417.
Ioannidis, John P.A. (2011) ‘More time for research: Fund people not projects’, Nature, 477 (29 September), pp. 529-531.
Jack, Andrew, (2009) ‘An acute talent for innovation (Interview with Sir James Black)’, Financial Times, 2 February 2009.
Klein, George (1973) ‘Summary of Papers Delivered at the Conference on Herpesvirus and Cervical Cancer (Key Biscayne, Florida)’, Cancer Research, 33(June 1973), pp. 1557-1563.
Lakatos, Imre (1970) ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’ in J. Worrall and G. Currie (Eds.) Imre Lakatos. Philosophical Papers. Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 8-101.
Mazzucato, Mariana (2013) The Entrepreneurial State. Anthem Press.
McIntyre, Peter (2005) ‘Finding the viral link: the story of Harald zur Hausen’, Cancer World, July-August, pp. 32-37.
Copyright (c) 2016 RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).