Reposted by andy alexander
Grant peer review costs a lot: ~$40k per application in reviewer time, with proposals reviewed again and again.
In @thetransmitter.bsky.social , I propose a partial lottery: reviewers decide pass/fail, chance picks among the passes, and "unmissable" ideas and ECRs get protected routes.
thetransmitter.org
How about adding an element of chance to grant review?
A process that uses a lottery system saves time and accepts that, above a quality threshold, luck has always played a part in science funding.
