Awarding money for research is not easy. As physicist Niels Bohr once remarked: “Prediction is hard, especially about the future.” Funders are expected to judge which research proposals will turn out best even though how they will turn out is, by definition, unknown.
The traditional way of doing this is peer review. In the UK, more than 95 per cent of grant money for biomedical research is allocated in this way....
The remainder of this commentary is available at researchresearch.com.
Steven Wooding is a research leader at RAND Europe, part of RAND Corporation, a non-profit research institute and a co-author of Alternatives to Peer Review in Research Project Funding.
This commentary originally appeared in Research Europe on April 25, 2013. Commentary gives RAND researchers a platform to convey insights based on their professional expertise and often on their peer-reviewed research and analysis.