ABSTRACT

I argue that peer review systems for assigning scientific funding make things less fair than do lotteries that assign funding to research proposals at least partly on the basis of chance. Even though lotteries assign funding randomly, while peer review does so on the basis of morally weighty considerations, lotteries are no more or less fair than peer review as a funding disbursement mechanism. Despite this parity, lotteries make the broader institution of science fairer, as compared to peer review. They do so because they serve to spread the benefits of being a scientist more evenly throughout the scientific community.

中文翻译：

---

彩票使科学更加公平

摘要

我认为，分配科学资助的同行评审系统使事情比彩票（至少部分基于机会分配给研究计划的彩票）不公平。即使彩票是随机分配的，尽管同行评审是出于道德上的考虑，但彩票作为筹资机制并不比同行评审公平。尽管具有同等的优势，但与同行评审相比，彩票使更广泛的科学机构更加公平。之所以这样做，是因为它们有助于在整个科学界更平均地传播成为科学家的好处。