Over the Hill

In 1905, his Annus mirabilis, Albert Einstein published five papers, each of which laid foundations for the next century of physics. One of the papers described special relativity. He was twenty-six years old at the time.

Rosalind Franklin was an X-ray crystallographer who did the experiments that allowed Watson and Crick to publish their famous structure of DNA in 1953. She did the experiments in her late 20's.

Évariste Galois originator of many important modern mathematical ideas such as group theory, died at age 20.

In the Manhattan project- the federal government project that moved from concept to working atomic bomb in about the time it now takes to get a PhD- the average age of a participating scientist was 29 years old.

I see a pattern here and a lesson for all the thirty-something postdocs out there: if you haven't had your blockbuster Nobel-prize-worthy idea by now, chances are you never will. I'm not saying you can't continue doing wonderful, creative things - things that younger people couldn't dream of doing - into your 40's, your 50's, or your 80's. I am saying that making a great fundamental stride in science probably isn't one of those things.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm right, then our academic system does not reflect this reality. These days, scientists (at least in my field) are still considered "in training" well into their 30's, when it may very well be that natural peak performance time, at least as far as scientific imagination is concerned, is in one's 20's, and that the appropriate time for training is in grade school, not grad school. It would be as if, to join the Olympics, you had to go through training until you were 35, waiting in line behind all the athletes coming before you. The athletes seem to have learned how to adapt to this reality. They recognize that there's a peak period in life for the kind of performance they're looking for, and they have designed the career around the reality. There's a place for older athletes too, just not at center court any more; instead, they coach, they commentate, they go on TV to sell cars and razor blades. Can't scientists do the same? Can't we recognize that in some things, age does matter? Let's have a place for our middle-aged and older scientists that recognizes their increased maturity and wisdom. But is it realistic to have them submitting application after application to funding agencies, saying that they're on the cusp of a revolutionary new idea?

Hard-core

Recently a strange individual began hanging around my lab, using the equipment and reagents, making demands on my time. I found out that he is unemployed and trying to figure out what to do, working for my advisor for free while deciding whether to go to graduate school. He is now commuting half an hour each way to spend long hours gathering data for someone else's grant applications in exchange for no money and no progress toward any kind of degree or certification. My advisor is as intimidating and as demanding toward him as toward anybody else. His motivation, I presume, is the thought that someone will surely notice his intelligence and hard work and it will pay off somehow.

Now that is some extra-strength Kool-Aid .

Does this happen in any other industry?

Laziness vs. Leadership

The lab I work in, like many others, has been living in fear of bankruptcy-- the last few grant proposals have been rejected, and what money we have is stretched tight. I often get the feeling that my advisor thinks this is the fault of the postdocs and grad students- that if we would just work a little harder for a little less, our funding problems would be solved.

University research labs are not alone in blaming their predicament on the greed and laziness of their lowest-paid workers- the leadership of the American auto industry is doing the same thing when they complain about the high price of unionized American auto workers. I suggest that those leaders also look at their own decisions over the past few decades as an explanation for their current crisis: for example, the decision to develop large, fuel-guzzling, once-profitable trucks and SUV's while neglecting fuel-efficient compact cars and hybrids. The lowest paid workers were in no position to challenge that lapse in judgement, and no amount of hard work or sacrifice on their part could have made up for it.

So, professors, do you really think the problem is that your American postdocs are too greedy and lazy? Perhaps the financial strain science labs are experiencing is a reflection on scientific leadership, not just on the people who work in those labs. After all, many professors seem eager to make it clear that they are in charge-- my advisor certainly has no qualms telling postdocs how to spend their time. That's fine, but if you're the decider, then next time one of your grant proposals is rejected, you need to reflect on the quality of your decisions. They're probably more important than whether or not I come in to the lab on weekends.