Applying to external funding is a time consuming and often unrewarding task, due to the generally low success rate. There is simply not enough money to fund all good research proposals and a selection has to be made. Often this selection is based on the ranking of proposals from the more meritorious to the less meritorious after peer review. Proposals at the top of the list get funded until there is no more funds left. This seems like a fair system. However, often the score difference between the last selected proposal and the first rejected one is so ridiculously small that it cannot be taken as an accurate measure upon which funding should be granted or denied.
In their paper "A manifesto for fair and equitable research funding in ecology", Winder and Hodge propose to introduce a proportion of randomness in the selection process of grant applications. For example, proposals could be categorised into fundable and not fundable pools based on peer review. All fundable proposals could then go in a draw to randomly select those to be funded. Alternatively, the ranking based on reviewers' scores could be maintained, and the top proposals funded, but a proportion of the 'average' proposals could go in a draw for selection at random.
Using data from a UK funding agency, the authors show how introducing a proportion of randomness in the selection process of grant applications significantly increases the diversity of scientists being funded. Some degree of randomness could also mitigate existing biases in relation to gender, race, institution size, geographic location etc. This would result in a more equitable distribution of funds, and is likely to encourage innovation and the development of new ideas.
Winder, L., & Hodge, S. (2017). A manifesto for fair and equitable research funding in ecology. Rethinking Ecology, 2, 47.
