Reputation risks of lotteries for research grants inhibit funders

Lotteries are not the answer to current difficulties in the system. There are quite enough random elements in life already so another one should not be added. The use of more anonymised applications and 1-page or 2-page initial application stages would be much better. However, a real difference would be made if there was more attention paid to value for money. Those of us who are cheap to run lose out to the big hitters in terms of grant income because the system only seems to value money brought in rather than what happens to it.

I like the phrase "Those that pass a certain quality threshold". So rather than replacing any element of the cumbersome element of apply, apply, apply, this rationing by lottery will just add to the hoops that applicants must jump through. If we keep 'rationing by application' at ;east we maintain some quality control'. If we move to 'rationing by lottery' at least we free up some time spent on those applications. This system seems to retain the worst of both methods.

Many funding decisions are seemingly random anyway, with very highly rated proposals unfunded. At least this system would be honest rather than pretending that one can accurately compare the quality of proposals in different fields.