Piper. Science funding is a mess. Could grant lotteries make it better?

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/18/18183939/science-funding-grant-lotteries-research
Excerpt:
Our current grant review process doesn’t select the best proposals, by a long shot. One study found very little correlation between how a grant was scored and whether the research it produced was cited.

Another, looking at high-quality proposals, found there was virtually no agreement on their merits — two different researchers might come to vastly different conclusions about whether the grant should be approved.

Another analysis looked at successful grants and found that 59 percent of them could have been rejected due to random variability in scoring. Clearly, above some threshold, the process is deeply subjective and not a real measure of quality.

(paragraph breaks added)

The article also talks about the problems more usually noted in the replication crisis, as well as the substantial amount of time grant writing takes.

 

I don't know much about this but could it be that a better vetting process of people who assess proposals for grants might be in order?
I know it can't be quite as simple as that.