Australia has reflected an international shift toward public participation in governance and science. Researchers have critiqued this shift as insufficient. Meanwhile, studies of how research funds are allocated also found room for improvement. This experiment tested a way to add value to the effort researchers put into research proposals by using them for deliberative public engagement. Three Australian events tested a model of deliberative participation in decision-making about science funding. These events were shorter than most deliberative processes, based on a model tested in the United Kingdom. Although recruitment was aimed at broad representation, participants had more formal education than Australia’s average. Voting decisions were most influenced by potential benefits to society of the planned research, as well as participants’ understanding of plans presented. Some reported that their decisions were influenced by whether benefits would happen locally. Results suggested that participants’ voting decisions were more influenced by the research plans than who presented them. However, unconscious biases cannot be ruled out as factors in decision-making. Participants reported they would be keen to participate in such a process again; however, this enthusiasm was linked to a meal incentive. The impact of brevity on deliberative decision-making is discussed, along with potential modifications for future experiments.