Global metascience seminar monitor

Abstract

Institutionally organized research funding emerged in the early 20th century, with significant expansion during and after World War II in the US. This sparked the adoption of project-based peer-reviewed research funding across Western systems, though at varying rates. Current criticisms focus on fairness issues, high costs, and questionable validity.

The seminar discusses emerging alternatives, including lottery-based approaches. While random funding distribution faces skepticism, tiebreaker lotteries among peer-reviewed proposals have gained more acceptance. The speaker proposes a lottery-first approach, in which a lottery determines who is eligible to submit a full proposal, presenting empirical data on fairness, costs, and satisfaction.

The talk concludes by examining why funding systems resist change despite criticisms and what functions beyond merit selection may explain this persistence.