Funding by Lottery: Political Problems and Research Opportunities

Fang and Casadevall present some excellent arguments for using a modified lottery to fund medical research (1). Research on research funding is ironically thin on the ground, but what research there is has identified significant biases and huge inefficiencies in current funding systems. If the current predominant model of funding through peer review (based on lengthy written application forms assessed by a small number of reviewers) was assessed by a grant review panel, it would likely be torn to shreds (2). Despite the evidence of the benefits of a funding lottery, there has been only one funding agency bold enough to use it, the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The lack of uptake is likely because a lottery is unpalatable to agency staff and politicians. Warwick Anderson, the previous CEO of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (the largest funder of health and medical research in Australia), derisively dismissed lotteries in a speech to the National Press Club of Australia (https://npc.org.au/speakers/professor-warwick-anderson-am/).