I was shocked to read that a growing number of funding bodies are assigning research grants randomly (Nature 575, 574–575; 2019). As an early-career researcher, I might be expected to gain from such a system, given that I could land a windfall without having my case judged against the competition. But I want my career to be built on achievement, as recognized and promoted through conventional grant awards — not undermined by a lottery system.

Some researchers might see random funding as more time-efficient, because it dispenses with the review process. It spares reviewers the burden of differentiating between the lowest-ranked successful candidate and the highest-ranked candidate who didn’t make the cut. However, for a researcher just starting out, a positive review based on the applicant’s contributions to the literature and other scientific merits is crucial for advancement.

And if lottery-based grants become widespread, academic research will suffer as fruitful ideas are arbitrarily stalled. Leaving success up to lady luck is not a solution.