> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Research
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Older Scientists Are Touted as Offering Untapped Value

By  Paul Basken
November 4, 2016
Albert-László Barabási (at right), a professor of network science at Northeastern U.: “This is really good news for all of us who are more than 20 years into their career, like myself. Because it says that, as long as I keep productive, I have just as high a chance of having a breakthrough as I had at any earlier part of my career.”
Matthew Modoono
Albert-László Barabási (at right), a professor of network science at Northeastern U.: “This is really good news for all of us who are more than 20 years into their career, like myself. Because it says that, as long as I keep productive, I have just as high a chance of having a breakthrough as I had at any earlier part of my career.”

Federal funding agencies have been eager to support younger researchers, reflecting a widespread belief that nurturing the next generation is critical to ensuring the long-term success of the nation’s scientific enterprise.

A new analysis out of Northeastern University, however, is challenging the orthodoxy. Looking across a variety of fields, the study found that while a researcher’s productivity generally declines with age, creativity and impact do not.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Albert-László Barabási (at right), a professor of network science at Northeastern U.: “This is really good news for all of us who are more than 20 years into their career, like myself. Because it says that, as long as I keep productive, I have just as high a chance of having a breakthrough as I had at any earlier part of my career.”
Matthew Modoono
Albert-László Barabási (at right), a professor of network science at Northeastern U.: “This is really good news for all of us who are more than 20 years into their career, like myself. Because it says that, as long as I keep productive, I have just as high a chance of having a breakthrough as I had at any earlier part of my career.”

Federal funding agencies have been eager to support younger researchers, reflecting a widespread belief that nurturing the next generation is critical to ensuring the long-term success of the nation’s scientific enterprise.

A new analysis out of Northeastern University, however, is challenging the orthodoxy. Looking across a variety of fields, the study found that while a researcher’s productivity generally declines with age, creativity and impact do not.

One conclusion, according to the authors of the paper, published on Thursday in Science: A scientist’s lifetime potential can be reliably measured early in his or her career. Another: If it’s a matter of providing them with more opportunities, the nation might actually benefit from greater investments in its more senior researchers.

“This is really good news for all of us who are more than 20 years into their career, like myself,” said one of the paper’s co-authors, Albert-László Barabási, a professor of network science at Northeastern. “Because it says that, as long as I keep productive, I have just as high a chance of having a breakthrough as I had at any earlier part of my career.”

The study was an attempt to apply complex mathematics to extensive databases of research publications across a variety of fields to apportion scientific success to specific combinations of innate ability, effort, and luck.

ADVERTISEMENT

The result is being touted by some experts as a fundamental breakthrough in individual-level understanding of scientific ability. It’s a “masterpiece,” said Filippo Radicchi, an assistant professor of informatics and computing at Indiana University at Bloomington. It reflects “an impressive amount of data, with very provocative findings,” said Stefano Allesina, a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago.

Others, however, see the possibility of an overblown attempt to draw broad conclusions from metrics, such as journal impact factor, that are known to be deficient and distortable measures of scientific value. “By claiming to predict long-term career growth, the authors have entered dangerous territory,” said Alexander M. Petersen, an assistant professor of management at the University of California at Merced.

The paper does suggest that there is something about scientists that produces consistent rates of citations during their careers, said Konrad P. Kording, a professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Northwestern University. But that consistency could easily reflect factors beyond scientific talent, even including political networking or a willingness to embrace poor evidence, Mr. Kording said.

Forcible Retirement

Mr. Barabási said he hesitated to translate the study — with co-authors at Northwestern, the University of Miami, Harvard University, and several European institutions — into broad, real-world policy implications. But he made clear his belief that it might serve as evidence against mandatory-retirement rules in Europe and at some American institutions.

He cited the case of John B. Fenn, who shared the 2002 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for work he had done at Virginia Commonwealth University after being forced into retirement by Yale University. A researcher is just as likely to have an important discovery at any age, and the greater success rate of younger researchers is entirely attributable to their higher rates of productivity at younger ages, Mr. Barabási said, summarizing the study’s statistical findings.

ADVERTISEMENT

The study does leave open the critical question of why older researchers are less productive, Mr. Barabási said. But universities should figure that out, and “create the environment for individuals to be able to continue working, and don’t forcefully retire them like Yale did with Fenn,” he said.

That may be the stupidest thing we could possibly do for the most productive and creative scientists.

James A. Evans, a professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, reiterated that message, suggesting the possibility that too many midcareer scientists are promoted into administrative positions. “And that may be the stupidest thing we could possibly do for the most productive and creative scientists,” Mr. Evans said.

Mr. Barabási steered clear, however, of any notion that his second major finding — the idea that each researcher has a consistent “quality” factor that endures throughout a career — suggests universities should move quickly to rid themselves of young scientists who score low after their first few papers. “I’m not a policy maker, I’m a researcher,” he said, “and I don’t want to go there, because I don’t understand where this quality factor comes from.”

That in fact could be an obvious direction for future research, Mr. Barabási said. The quality factor identified in the study seems to be a clear combination of ability and education, he said, but otherwise isn’t explainable.

Paul Basken covers university research and its intersection with government policy. He can be found on Twitter @pbasken, or reached by email at paul.basken@chronicle.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

A version of this article appeared in the November 18, 2016, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Scholarship & Research
Paul Basken
Paul Basken was a government policy and science reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education, where he won an annual National Press Club award for exclusives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

  • Better Than Impact Factor? NIH Team Claims Key Advance in Ranking Journal Articles
  • Why Don’t Young Scientists Get More Grants? Often They Don’t Apply
  • A New Grant Aims to Help Young Medical Researchers Jump-Start Their Careers
  • Are Young Scientists Getting Enough Help From the NIH?
  • NIH Courts Younger Researchers, Even as It Debates How Far to Go
  • Facing Budget Pressure, NIH Sees Opportunity to Favor Younger Researchers
  • Patent Disputes With Professors Lead to Judgment for Yale U., Lawsuit by UMass
  • The Number That’s Devouring Science
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin