Instead of making scientists compete for grants based on project proposals, research funding could simply be divided equally among all 'qualified' researchers, according to a new paper.
Authors Krist Vaesen and Joel Katzav argue that such an 'egalitarian' distribution of funds would still leave each grant holder with enough money to support their work and pay for students and junior researchers. But I'm not sure I agree with their logic. Vaesen and Katzav start by outlining the problems with the current system of competitive grant peer review:
[There is a] common complaint that grant peer review bears excessive costs [1–2], appears to be unreliable [1,3] and is subject to all sorts of biases, including, among others, biases relating to gender, affiliation, age and ethnicity [1,4–6].
These complaints have led some to suggest abolishing grant proposals and giving money to researchers for them to spend as they wish, but Vaesen and ...
