Why are Funders Using a Lucky Draw?<\/h2>\n
It turns out that reviewers are having a really tough time deciding whose grant application is the most deserving. They get so many applications of great quality<\/a> and great importance, that they simply cannot decide who to award the grant to. Therefore, they screen the applications and decide on a short list. The short-listed applications are all of equal quality and relevance. More importantly, they meet the minimum requirements decided upon by the funding agency. They then use a \u201clottery\u201d or \u201clucky draw\u201d system to randomly select the project that will receive the funding.<\/p>\n The \u201clucky draw\u201d process promises to be more efficient than the traditional system. The reason is that despite a well written and thought out grant application, there is no guarantee of the success of the research project. The funding bodies suggest that once an application meets certain criteria, funding bodies may as well toss a coin to decide who should receive the funding. Therefore, luck is already part of the process.<\/p>\n This is how the lucky draw process works<\/a>:<\/p>\n The high- and low-quality applications are easy to rank, however, those that are in between these two ranks, i.e. mid-quality applications, are more difficult to rate. Here we list some reputable funders that have used this \u201clottery system\u201d:<\/p>\n The \u201clucky draw\u201d approach takes human bias<\/strong> out of the process. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation found that reviewers tend to score proposals written by women lower than those written by men<\/a>. This even occurs when the details of the applicant are unknown. This study discovered that the reason for this is that women use more specific language whereas men tend to write using broader terms. Women tend to be more cautious in their claims, whereas men tend to make more sweeping claims. Reviewers seem to prefer the bolder way of writing.<\/p>\n Another study discovered that reviewers that were chosen by the grant\u2019s applicants were four times more likely to rate an application as excellent. Other unintentional biases creep into the system, namely:<\/p>\n The \u201clucky draw\u201d approach also saves time<\/strong>. Traditionally, funding bodies need reviewers to review grant applications. This is followed by time-consuming face-to-face meetings by a panel of referees where they decide who to award the funding to. Time-saving strategies such as video grant applications<\/a> rather than the traditional written ones have been considered. Using the \u201clottery\u201d system means panel selection meeting time is saved and can be used instead of valuable research.<\/p>\n The \u201clucky draw\u201d approach is also better for a researcher\u2019s self-esteem. This works both ways. Academic researchers whose applications make the lottery stage but are unsuccessful may simply feel \u201cunlucky\u201d, rather than unworthy. Being unsuccessful in the traditional system makes researchers feel as if their work is not good enough. On the other hand, researchers who are successful in receiving funding in this way do not feel entitled, since their success was based on luck.<\/p>\n While I fully understand the reasons behind the lottery approach, it still concerns me that an application may not get funding due to random selection<\/a>. Could a valuable project get \u2018unlucky\u201d and the research community misses out on novel research? I would imagine the grants have predefined criteria and fields of research they wish to fund. For example, a particular grant might want to fund one aspect of one particular type of cancer. This would cut down the selection to the most relevant applications, followed by the next most promising application.<\/p>\n Continuously \u201cunlucky\u201d researchers may be disadvantaged by this system. Imagine the frustration of a novel research project not being able to get funding purely because of bad luck? Do you see any merit in a \u201clucky draw\u201d system for grant applications or do you think there is a better approach? Let us know in the comments section below.<\/p>\nThe Lucky Draw Process<\/h2>\n
\n
Funders Already Using the Lottery System<\/h2>\n
\n
The Benefits of Taking a Gamble<\/h2>\n
\n
Science Should Not Be a Gamble<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"