Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T22:30:55.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Lottery a Better Way of Resource Distribution Than Baseline Funding?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2023

Takahiro Sakamoto Open the ORCID record for Takahiro Sakamoto [Opens in a new window]
Takahiro Sakamoto*
Affiliation:
Department of Evolutionary Studies of Biosystems, SOKENDAI (Graduate University for Advanced Studies), Hayama, Japan
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recently, several funding agencies have introduced the distribution of funds by a lottery system; however, the effects of this system on the productivity of the research community are unclear. Simulation studies in philosophy of science have argued that a combination of peer review and lottery is an optimal method. However, these models overlook several important aspects of research activities, such as baseline funding through block grants. In this article, I present a general theoretical model that incorporates these aspects and argue that the conventional combination of peer review and baseline funding outperforms the combination of peer review and lottery in many situations.

Type
Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , July 2023 , pp. 603 - 628
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aagaard, Kaare, Kladakis, Alexander, and Nielsen, Mathias W.. 2020. “Concentration or Dispersal of Research Funding?” Quantitative Science Studies 1 (1):117–49.Google Scholar
Adam, David. 2019. “Science Funders Gamble on Grant Lotteries.” Nature 575 (7784):574–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexander, Jason McKenzie, Himmelreich, Johannes, and Thompson, Christopher. 2015. “Epistemic Landscapes, Optimal Search, and the Division of Cognitive Labor.” Philosophy of Science 82 (3):424–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avin, Shahar. 2015. “Funding Science by Lottery.” In Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science: EPSA13 Helsinki, edited by Mäki, Uskali, Votsis, Ioannis, and Ruphy, Stéphanie, 111–26. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avin, Shahar. 2019a. “Centralized Funding and Epistemic Exploration.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (3):629–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avin, Shahar. 2019b. “Mavericks and Lotteries.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 76:13–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brezis, Elise S. 2007. “Focal Randomisation: An Optimal Mechanism for the Evaluation of R&D Projects.” Science and Public Policy 34 (10):691–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromham, Lindell, Dinnage, Russell, and Hua, Xia. 2016. “Interdisciplinary Research Has Consistently Lower Funding Success.” Nature 534 (7609):684–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, Ferric C., and Casadevall, Arturo. 2016. “Research Funding: The Case for a Modified Lottery.” mBio 7 (2):e00422–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Fortunato, Santo, Bergstrom, Carl T., Katy Börner, James A. Evans, Dirk Helbing, Milojević, Staša, Petersen, Alexander M., Radicchi, Filippo, Sinatra, Roberta, Uzzi, Brian, Vespignani, Alessandro, Waltman, Ludo, Wang, Dashun, and Barabási, Albert-László. 2018. “Science of Science.” Science 359 (6379):eaao0185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillies, Donald. 2014. “Selecting Applications for Funding: Why Random Choice Is Better Than Peer Review.” RT: A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 2 (1):1–14.Google Scholar
Graves, Nicholas, Barnett, Adrian G., and Clarke, Philip. 2011. “Funding Grant Proposals for Scientific Research: Retrospective Analysis of Scores by Members of Grant Review Panel.” BMJ 343:d4797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heesen, Remco. 2019. “The Credit Incentive to Be a Maverick.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 76:5–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitcher, Philip. 1990. “The Division of Cognitive Labor.” Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrue, Philippe, Guellec, Dominique, and Sgard, Frédéric. 2018. “New Trends in Public Research Funding.” In OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2018, 185–204. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Leahey, Erin, Beckman, Christine M., and Stanko, Taryn L.. 2017. “Prominent but Less Productive: The Impact of Interdisciplinarity on Scientists’ Research.” Administrative Science Quarterly 62 (1):105–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Mengyao, Vernon Choy, Philip Clarke, Barnett, Adrian, Blakely, Tony, and Pomeroy, Lucy. 2020. “The Acceptability of Using a Lottery to Allocate Research Funding: A Survey of Applicants.” Research Integrity and Peer Review 5 (1):3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1957. “Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science.” American Sociological Review 22 (6):635–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pier, Elizabeth L., Markus Brauer, Amarette Filut, Anna Kaatz, Joshua Raclaw, Nathan, Mitchell J., Ford, Cecilia E., and Carnes, Molly. 2018. “Low Agreement among Reviewers Evaluating the Same NIH Grant Applications.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (12):2952–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pöyhönen, Samuli. 2017. “Value of Cognitive Diversity in Science.” Synthese 194 (11):4519–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strevens, Michael. 2003. “The Role of the Priority Rule in Science.” Journal of Philosophy 100 (2):55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoma, Johanna. 2015. “The Epistemic Division of Labor Revisited.” Philosophy of Science 82 (3):454–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzzi, Brian, Mukherjee, Satyam, Stringer, Michael, and Jones, Ben. 2013. “Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact.” Science 342 (6157):468–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaesen, Krist, and Katzav, Joel. 2017. “How Much Would Each Researcher Receive If Competitive Government Research Funding Were Distributed Equally among Researchers?” PLoS ONE 12 (9):e0183967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wahls, Wayne P. 2018. “Point of View: The NIH Must Reduce Disparities in Funding to Maximize Its Return on Investments from Taxpayers.” eLife 7:e34965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisberg, Michael, and Muldoon, Ryan. 2009. “Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor.” Philosophy of Science 76 (2):225–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, Rafols, Ismael, and D’Este, Pablo. 2015. “Does Interdisciplinary Research Lead to Higher Citation Impact? The Different Effect of Proximal and Distal Interdisciplinarity.” PLoS ONE 10 (8):e0135095.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed