Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Rethink funding by putting the lottery first

Nature Human Behaviour volume 7, pages 1031–1033 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Research funding determines the course of science and thus shapes future knowledge. However, funding allocation is inherently biased, non-optimal and costly. We present a Shiny app that simulates the effects of funding scenarios on costs, diversity and quality. We advocate a lottery at the beginning to promote inclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Exemplary grant application scenarios.
Fig. 2: Evaluation of the four exemplary funding scenarios with regard to costs, diversity and quality.

References

  1. Fang, F. C., Bowen, A. & Casadevall, A. eLife 5, e13323 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D. & Mortenson, E. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 1295–1309 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Taffe, M. A. & Gilpin, N. W. eLife 10, e65607 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, C. Y. et al. eLife 11, e83071 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hoppe, T. A. et al. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw7238 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Dresler, M. et al. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 607–608 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gross, K. & Bergstrom, C. T. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000065 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mervis, J. Science 366, 164–165 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Herbert, D. L., Barnett, A. G., Clarke, P. & Graves, N. BMJ Open 3, 002800 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rahal, R.-M. et al. Nat. Hum. Behav. 7, 164–167 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank D. S. Stolz, Y. Schwarze, C. F. Weber & A. Schröder for their feedback on earlier versions of this article and the Shiny app.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

    Finn Luebber, Sören Krach, Frieder M. Paulus & Lena Rademacher

  2. Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

    Finn Luebber

  3. Open Science Initiative, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

    Finn Luebber, Sören Krach, Frieder M. Paulus & Lena Rademacher

  4. Academy of Fine Arts, Munich, Germany

    Marina Martinez Mateo

  5. Behavioral Law & Economics, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany

    Rima-Maria Rahal

  6. Department of Psychology, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Jule Specht

Authors
  1. Finn Luebber
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sören Krach
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marina Martinez Mateo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frieder M. Paulus
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lena Rademacher
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rima-Maria Rahal
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jule Specht
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sören Krach.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luebber, F., Krach, S., Martinez Mateo, M. et al. Rethink funding by putting the lottery first. Nat Hum Behav 7, 1031–1033 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01649-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01649-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing