Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The way in which research funding is allocated by both governmental and non-governmental research agencies needs to be revamped to avoid bias and encourage innovation. Known biases in allocation of funding include those driven by gender, race, institution size, geographic location and interdisciplinary study. We also contend that the peer-review process itself provides an apparently fair process, but that the flaws within it work against funding innovative science. We propose an unbiased process that combines the use of short proposals, blinded review and a lottery to allocate funding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Winder et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: