Just dipping into the latest issue of The Scientist, I was drawn to this opinion article - Middle-Aged Scientists are Most Potent.
So, some sociologist has reached the stunning conclusion that our output, in terms of publications, rises gradually to a peak somewhere in mid-career and then declines. They also note that success requires establishment and people tend to become established over time and are therefore older. Wow!
My question to you middle-aged established scientists is: how do you feel about a system that supports those who are already established but makes life very hard for bright, enthusiastic younger scientists, to the point that they are so disillusioned with the entire process that they are forced to consider abandoning their chosen profession?
Comments
Limited Resources
OK so this is kind of Darwinian but anyway: There are limited resources (essentially money in this game) for the number of researchers out here willing to work - so they compete. Now, humans are monkeys and as such form societies and groups that are dominated by heirarchies - alpha males, "yes" men or women and of course "the proletariat". Alphas maintain their status by sh*tting all over the prols.
But of course, this is all in reference to a subset of society we call "the lab" or "the academic world". We can - and many do - just say "f*ck science!" and get out. The problem with this notion is its false! Were ever you go, this is how it works. Think of the most egalitarian working environment you can - go there! - and you will see the same thing in operation.
Now for my personal view. What I described above I believe is true, but I believe it is bad - especially in science. Science is about (amongst other things) creativity. Our problems are not simple - we don't make more money by bulldozing forest and we don't fix society by make some new laws. We don't destroy nature (well it isn't our intention) we try to understand it and we don't try to control nature when we invent our laws to describe it. We usually leave the controlling bit to engineers. What we do as scientists requires a level of objectivity that is hard to maintain within the confines of heirarchical systems of doing things. Not impossible - but harder.
This is the source of disillusionment for many young scientists. They see their seniors coasting along with stupid ideas and lazy attitudes and wonder just what it takes to get to the top - where they too will inevitably end up being stupid, lazy and well funded. Yes this is all very cynical - and I honestly can only see one way out given the contraints on how humans operate. More money means more overflow to those with new and interesting ideas and who have nothing to lose. It's usually on this edge that great ideas are born and even some great careers. But yes, I'm asking for more money to circumvent the problem - and that just isn't gonna happen now is it?
Easy
You recruit them to work their butts off in your lab until they too are middle aged, and therefore qualify for recognition (such as the much vaunted Young Scientist of the Year award at Lorne Genome -- open to those under 40). Then they can get guest authorships, amass a "track record" and attract funding, therefore kudos, therefore respect. And a pot-belly.