Rethinking Fairness: Could Grant Lotteries Be the Future of U.S. Federal Funding?

Mar 30

3 min read

In the world of federal grants, the selection process has always been synonymous with rigorous peer review. Experts analyze, score, and debate to determine which proposals will receive funding and which will be left behind. But what happens when this tried-and-true system begins to show signs of bias, burnout, and bottlenecks? What if, in the pursuit of fairness and innovation, we rolled the dice—literally?

While several countries have piloted or implemented grant lotteries with promising results, the United States has largely stayed in its traditional lane. Agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) rely on structured peer review and panel scoring. Yet, interest is growing in exploring randomized funding as a legitimate method for leveling the playing field.

A compelling case has been made by the Federation of American Scientists, which proposed an experimental lottery pilot within the NSF to address growing concerns about equity and inefficiency in the current system. Similarly, academic articles like one published in mBio outline how a modified lottery could reduce bias and broaden participation among underrepresented researchers. In these models, proposals are first screened for basic quality and feasibility, and those meeting the bar are entered into a randomized selection process.

A Moment for Change

This conversation arrives at a pivotal moment. In 2025, grantmaking in the U.S. is unfolding against a backdrop of significant political and cultural shifts. The current federal administration has taken aggressive steps to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) considerations from public funding decisions. Executive orders have halted the use of DEI frameworks in federal RFPs and Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs), leading many grant recipients to question how equitable access to resources will be ensured moving forward.

It’s not just a rhetorical question. Institutions like Rice University and others in higher education have reported funding freezes or increased scrutiny for projects previously aligned with DEI priorities. Entire sectors of research—particularly those aimed at health disparities, education equity, and economic inclusion—now face uncertain futures.

Enter: The Lottery

In this climate, grant lotteries present a fascinating paradox. On one hand, they strip away subjective evaluation, potentially eliminating individual reviewer bias, unconscious or otherwise. On the other hand, they could be interpreted as "value-neutral," operating independently of any mission-driven priority like increasing diversity in the scientific workforce.

But here’s where it gets interesting: what if the lottery is the equity tool? If every grant that passes a basic standard of quality is entered into the pool equally, then all applicants—regardless of institutional prestige, identity, or geographic location—stand the same chance. In a policy environment increasingly hostile to explicit DEI strategies, lotteries could become a covert but powerful mechanism for promoting fairness.

Challenges and Critiques

Of course, this approach isn't without its detractors. Critics argue that funding-by-chance could dilute the meritocratic ethos of federal research. How can we be sure that the most promising or impactful projects are being supported? There's also concern about public perception: will taxpayers accept a system where tens of thousands of dollars (or more) are awarded by random draw?

And yet, even within the existing system, the subjectivity of peer review is a well-documented issue. Review fatigue, personal bias, and institutional favoritism often seep into scoring. Some proposals may rise or fall based not on content, but on reviewer preferences, academic pedigree, or simple luck of the review panel draw.

These concerns have been increasingly acknowledged by federal agencies and researchers alike, prompting discussion around how to improve transparency, reduce reviewer burden, and ensure a more equitable playing field.

What Comes Next?

There is no sweeping reform yet, but the groundwork for experimentation is being laid. Think tanks, research advocacy groups, and academic leaders continue to nudge the conversation forward. With DEI frameworks under siege and long-standing evaluation models under strain, the U.S. grantmaking ecosystem is ripe for a bold pivot.

For grant recipients and funders alike, it may be time to consider a future where randomness is not a rejection of rigor, but an invitation to reimagine fairness.

Want more federal funding insights with a fresh perspective?

Stay connected with FedGrant Solutions for the latest on grants policy, compliance strategies, and bold ideas that move the sector forward.

Citations: