Contrary to the implication in your report, I am indeed grateful to have won a research grant from a lottery system (see Nature 575, 574–575; 2019). The Health Research Council of New Zealand that awarded this grant funds proposals with “transformative” potential; applications are screened by a panel who ensure that the listed criteria have been met. I consider that this sort of high-risk, high-reward funding is ideally suited to a lottery format. However, I am less enthusiastic about lottery schemes that do not apply any merit-based criteria.

I agree with your quote from economist Margit Osterloh that there is a need for greater humility in science, but I do not think that fostering humility should be more important to funders than seeking to identify the best proposals. If funding excellence remains the main goal, the core premise to support fully open lotteries must be that assessment panels are ineffective at identifying this.

This view does a disservice to those who volunteer their time for scant reward. My experience on New Zealand’s funding review panels is overwhelmingly that members are collegial, hard-working and dedicated to identifying the best proposals. Science depends on such whole-hearted commitment.