Policy Considerations for Random Allocation of Research Funds

Shahar Avin


There are now several proposals for introducing random elements into the process of funding allocation for research, and some initial implementation of this policy by funding bodies. The proposals have been supported on efficiency grounds, with models, including social epistemology models, showing random allocation could increase the generation of significant truths in a community of scientists when compared to funding by peer review. The models in the literature are, however, fairly abstract (by necessity). This paper introduces some of the considerations that are required to build on the modelling work towards a fully-fledged policy proposal, including issues of cost and fairness.


science funding;research policy;peer review;lottery

Full Text:





Avin, S., 2015. Funding science by lottery. In: Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science: EPSA13 Helsinki. Springer, pp. 111–126.

Avin, S., forthcoming. Centralised funding and epistemic exploration. British journal for the philosophy of science.

Boudreau, K. J., Guinan, E. C., Lakhani, K. R., Riedl, C., 2016. Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Science 62 (10), 2765–2783.

Boyce, J. R., 1994. Allocation of goods by lottery. Economic inquiry 32 (3), 457–476.

Boyle, C., 1998. Organizations selecting people: how the process could be made fairer by the appropriate use of lotteries. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician) 47 (2), 291–321.

Boyle, C., 2010. Lotteries for education. Imprint Academic.

Boyle, C., 2013. Examples where randomisation is being used to distribute prizes., Accessed 23 October 2013.

Brezis, E. S., 2007. Focal randomisation: An optimal mechanism for the evaluation of R&D projects. Science and Public Policy 34 (10), 691–698.

Carpenter, R., 1983. Scoring to provide risk-related primary health care: evaluation and updating during use. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 1–32.

Chang, H., 2012. Is water H2O?: Evidence, pluralism and realism. Springer, New York.

Chubin, D., Hackett, E., 1990. Peerless science: Peer review and US science policy. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Cicchetti, D. V., 1991. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and brain sciences 14 (01), 119–135.

Davison, A. C., Hinkley, D. V., 1997. Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Demicheli, V., Di Pietrantonj, C., 2007. Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2.

Dinges, M., 2005. The Austrian Science Fund: Ex post evaluation and performance of FWF funded research projects. Institute of Technology and Regional Policy, Vienna.

Doris, J., 2002. Lack of character: Personality and moral behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Duxbury, N., 1999. Random justice: on lotteries and legal decision-making. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Edgeworth, F. Y., 1888. The statistics of examinations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 51 (3), 599–635.

Edgeworth, F. Y., 1890. The element of chance in competitive examinations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 53 (3), 460–475.

Elster, J., 1989. Solomonic judgements: studies in the limitations of rationality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fang, F., Casadevall, A., 2016. Research funding: the case for a modified lottery. mbio 7: e00422-16.

Frazier, S., 1987. University funding: Information on the role of peer review at NSF and NIH. US General Accounting Office.

Gataker, T., Boyle, C., 2008. The nature and uses of lotteries: a historical and theological treatise, 2nd Edition. The luck of the draw. Imprint Academic, Exeter, UK.

Gillies, D., 2008. How should research be organised? College Publications, London.

Gillies, D., 2014. Selecting applications for funding: why random choice is better than peer review. RT. A Journal on research policy and evaluation 2 (1).

URL 3834

Godin, B., Dor ́e, C., 2004. Measuring the impacts of science: Beyond the economic dimension. History and sociology of S&T statistics.

Goldman, A. I., 2001. Experts: which ones should you trust? Philosophy and phenomenological research 63 (1), 85–110.

Goodwin, B., 2005. Justice by lottery, 2nd Edition. Imprint Academic, Charlottesville, VA.

Graves, N., Barnett, A. G., Clarke, P., 2011. Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ 343.

Greenberg, D. S., 1998. Chance and grants. The Lancet 351 (9103), 686.

Health Research Council of New Zealand, 2017. Explorer grants. researcher-initiated-proposals/explorer-grants, last checked 22 June 2017.

Herbert, D. L., Barnett, A. G., Clarke, P., Graves, N., 2013. On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open 3 (5).

Irwin, A., Wynne, B., 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. URL

Kitcher, P., 1993. The advancement of science. Oxford University Press, New York.

Knuth, D. E., 1997. The art of computer programming, 3rd Edition. Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA.

Latour, B., 1987. Science in action. Open University Press, Milton


Martino, J. P., 1992. Science funding: politics and porkbarrel. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.

Polanyi, M., 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1, 54–73.

Research Councils UK, 2006. Report of the Research Councils UK Efficiency and effectiveness of peer review project. documents/rcukprreport.pdf.

Saunders, B., 2008. The equality of lotteries. Philosophy 83 (03), 359–372.

Stone, P., 2011. The luck of the draw: The role of lotteries in decision-making. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

VolkswagenStiftung, 2017. Experiment! – in search of bold research ideas. our-funding-portfolio-at-a-glance/experiment.html, last checked 22 June 2017.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.