Abstract
Motivated by recent criticisms of the low reliability and high costs of science funding allocation by grant peer review, the paper investigates the alternative of funding science by lottery, and more generally the possible introduction of a formal random element in the funding process. At first it may seem that randomness will lower expected efficiency, by allocating funds to less meritorious projects. By focusing on the notion that we want funded research projects to ultimately make our lives better, and the observation that the causal effect of research projects is subject to change over time, the paper argues that the introduction of randomness can counteract a bias towards the familiar present in grant peer review, and thus increase the overall efficiency of science funding. The time-dependant nature of scientific merit is exemplified by the historical processes leading to the discovery of the structure of DNA. The argument regarding the relative effectiveness of random allocation is supported by a computer simulation of different funding mechanisms on a hypothetical dynamic epistemic landscape.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Allen, G. E. (1975). Life science in the twentieth century (History of science). New York: Wiley.
Avin, S. (2014). Breaking the grant cycle: On the rational allocation of public resources to scientific research projects. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/247434
Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier: A report to the President. U.S. Government printing office, Washington.
Dinges, M. (2005). The Austrian science fund: Ex post evaluation and performance of FWF funded research projects. Vienna: Institute of Technology and Regional Policy.
Geuna, A., Salter, A. J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2003). Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
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. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4797.
Greenberg, D. S. (1998). Chance and grants. The Lancet, 351(9103), 686. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)78485-3.
Herbert, D. L., Barnett, A. G., Clarke, P., et al. (2013). On the time spent preparing grant proposals: An observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open, 3, e002800. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002800.
Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
NIH. (2013). NIH grants policy statement. Accessed Nov 9, 2013, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2013/
NSF. (2013). Grant proposal guide. Accessed Nov 9, 2013, http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 54–73.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 55–79.
Weisberg, M., Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 76(2), 225–252. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/644786
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Avin, S. (2015). Funding Science by Lottery. In: Mäki, U., Votsis, I., Ruphy, S., Schurz, G. (eds) Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science: EPSA13 Helsinki. European Studies in Philosophy of Science, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23014-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23015-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)