A critical debate has blossomed within the field of research policy, science and technology studies, and philosophy of science regarding the possible benefits and limitations of allocating extramural grants using a lottery system. The most common view among those supporting the lottery idea is that some form of modified lottery is acceptable, if properly combined with peer review. This means that partial randomization can be applied only after experts have screened the pursuit-worthiness of all submitted proposals and sorted out those of lowest quality. In the present paper, I will argue against the use of partial lotteries or partial randomization and instead promote use of a pure lottery in combination with a radical increase in block funding. The main reason for holding this position is that a partial lottery cannot solve the problems inherent in the current funding system, which is based on grant competitions and peer review. A partial lottery cannot decrease the enormous time-waste, reduce the uneven distribution of time between researchers, neutralize expert biases or mitigate academic power asymmetries. Instead, we need a stronger focus on improving general time management in academia by implementing a more holistic model for organizing research opportunities in the future.

关于使用彩票系统分配校外资助的可能好处和局限性，在研究政策、科学技术研究和科学哲学领域已经展开了一场批判性辩论。支持抽签想法的人中最常见的观点是，如果与同行评审适当结合，某种形式的修改抽签是可以接受的。这意味着只有在专家筛选了所有提交的提案的追求价值并筛选出质量最低的提案后，才能应用部分随机化。在本文中，我将反对使用部分抽签或部分随机化，而是提倡使用纯粹抽签与大幅增加集体融资相结合。持有这一立场的主要原因是，部分抽签无法解决当前基于拨款竞争和同行评审的资助体系固有的问题。部分抽签无法减少巨大的时间浪费，减少研究人员之间的时间分配不均，消除专家偏见或减轻学术权力不对称。相反，我们需要通过实施更全面的模型来组织未来的研究机会，更加注重改善学术界的一般时间管理。