Innovators Are Older Than Ever

GrokSoup writes "A new study shows that great achievements in science are produced by older innovators today than they were a century ago. Using data on Nobel Prize winners and great inventors, the author shows that the age at which noted innovations are produced has increased by approximately 6 years over the 20th Century. This runs contrary to accepted wisdom in science, which says that most scientists peak in their 20s. It is also welcome news to those of us who have not yet, ahem, done our Nobel-winning work."

Well of course...

[jazzman251]

look at the professor in futurama...

Well yes

[keesh]

Because these days, everyone is expected to waste three or four years memorising things that can easily be looked up, rather than actually learning anything useful or cutting edge in a degree.

Re:Well yes

[Rei]

I disagree. Modern technological innovations are more and more dependant on having a large scientific knowledge base, which takes time to acquire. This, to me, seems the main reason for the increase - not some shift from a "golden age" in education. I would only expect this number to increase in the future.

Re:Well yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Why yes, because memorising huge lists of standard integrals and wave equations for exams equates to having a large scientific knowledge base, and knowing where to find huge lists of standard integrals and wave equations and being able to use said lists in exams does not.

Re:Well yes

[Rei]

Um, no. For example, lets say that you want to come up with an innovation relating to modelling of airflow turbulence. Go ahead and try and do that without first learning the Navier-Stokes equations and familiarizing yourself with at least some of the dozen or so turbulence models. Of course, try learning the navier stokes equations and turbulence models without a solid physics background as well. Try to get that physics background without a calculus and algebra background, and try to get that without a basic mathematics background.

It's not about "memorization" - it's about learning, and there's an awful lot to learn to be prepared to work in a modern scientific field.

Re:Well yes

[mindaktiviti]

Getting all of that background should be done by the time you're 17-19, not 25-30. Kids should be able to finish high school calculus in grade 8, not grade 12. We need to expect more from them, otherwise they will do the bare minimum. The public school system moves at the pace of the lowest common denominator. ...Well, no that's not right, but they definitely move on the lower end of the spectrum. Also, in elementary/high school you are generally rewarded for memorization as opposed to expressing a higher form of understanding. That doesn't happen until sometime late in university. In some instances I believe that school can inhibit your inventiveness, because it certainly doesn't push you to learn on your own. You just have to do your homework so you can study for those exams, which will get you into university/college. It's all about marks marks marks.

Re:Well yes

[MSZ]

Different people learn differently, while the modern education system assumes homogenous mass of pupils. To achieve that effect, everything is dumbed down to the level well below average.

One thing that would help immensely would be personalized education after some basics (like grammar school). Some are better at sciences, some are better at humanities, some are lost cause. Let everyone progress into their best at earlier age. Even if it means that you will have engineers that don't know Shakespeare or hi

Re:Well yes

[cyclop]

Does a programmer really have to know what is the function of mitochondria?

Yes. And vice versa. My interest in programming greatly helped me working in biotechnology, for example.

People should of course specialize, but specialization doesn't mean ignoring the whole world around you. This is a disaster for society already (here in Italy we have to vote for a referendum on stem cell research next week: you can imagine how much even learned people misunderstand the problem) Kids can and should simply learn much more at school than today. Stupidity is incurable, but ignorance not.

Moreover, most interesting things in science today happen at the interfaces between knowledge fields. The world of science would be much poorer in a world like the one you seem to want.

Re:Well yes

[LilGuy]

I agree with you to an extent. I KNOW I could've blown past everyone else had I been given the chance. I easily could've been doing calculus by 8th grade. But the pace of my classes were so insanely slow that I got lazy and lost the drive to do any of it at all.

In 4th grade we had a special program going on, if you joined you wouldn't have any report cards, and ALL work would be done at your own pace. I went from doing multiplication to advanced algebra in that 1 year. What's more was it was FUN! I l

Re:Well yes

[LilGuy]

Indeed. I feel the same way to a T. Crazy world eh?

Re:Well yes

[dingfelder]

Interestingly enough, many people DO learn Physics and Calculus + much more by the time they are 18. The issue though is that most are not in the US.

I went to one of the top 10 high schools in the US and many of my friends were taking advanced placement classes like advanced calculus (at UNC) but most of the students only ended up with one year of calculus, if that.

At most US high schools, the standard of educations is lower than that, and most students do not get calculus until they are in college. Mos

Re:Well yes

[mindaktiviti]

Similar to what my brother and parents learned in Poland. I remember I once looked at my brothers grade 1 math work book (from Poland), and realized that some of those questions were the same as my Canadian grade 7 classes! I'm not too sure what I'll do when I start to have kids. Maybe a montessori school or something.

Re:Well yes

[tmortn]

Yes but do you really think that for a student that finds intrest in these things it takes 18 some odd years of formal education to learn them ?

Current mass education systems are far more successfull at turning out mindless sheep that simply accept what they are told than fundamentally grounded eggheads that push the edges of our knowledge. Basic math, calc and physics do not take years upon years. For someone that is motivated and interested, they can be picked up in days, weeks at the most.

To me the modern classroom is like the equivalent of those A++ certification classes. They cost alot, teach you nothing and give you a stamp of approval that only means a damn thing to HR weenies.

The average age of ground breaking work is going up not because it takes that long to grasp the fundamentals. But because we have a system in place that blocks most from having any reasonable chance to learn, or more importanly apply, those fundamentals before going through a monolitic education process unable to adapt to the needs of the gifted student.

This is why...

[rmdyer]

...it is simpler just believe that a supreme being does it all. Knowing things is just too much work...especially these days. So hypothesizing... As the age of actually contemplating complex concepts rises, the more likely it will be for the layman to misunderstand how things work. Will this cause a shift back to superstition again?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clark

Re:Well yes

[shawkin]

I developed the first effective lung cleaner device. It should take lung disease out of the top 10 causes of death.
www.medicalacoustics.com

It generates low frequency sound using airflow turbulence and a reed / flapping flag hybrid. It took 18 years.The FDA trials are almost done.
I'm 57.
Shrug.

Re:Well yes

[elronxenu]

s/diagonostic/diagnostic/

s/athsma/asthma/

Re:Well yes

[MMaestro]

But then doesn't that mean the innovator is handicapping himself from innovating in the first place? By taking the time to learn and memorize these modern 'innovations' aren't they grounding their thoughts into the same kind of mentality they are trying to break free of in the first place?

Re:Well yes

[the eric conspiracy]

By taking the time to learn and memorize these modern 'innovations' aren't they grounding their thoughts into the same kind of mentality they are trying to break free of in the first place?

The problem is that you are equating the idea of hidebound mentality with the tools necessary to do basic scientific work. If you have good teachers you can obtain the latter without getting caught up in the former. If not, well, you are probably likely to get the former without the latter.

Re:Well yes

[Adrilla]

I sorta think of it like guitar playing: Yeah you'll get an innovator like Jimi Hendrix occasionally, but for most people, without the lessons, they wont accomplish much or they'll eventually learn the basics, but it'll take them much longer than they needed.

Re:Well yes

[jpflip]

There's a big difference between knowledge and dogma. Certain fields (i.e. many scientific fields) incorporate a lot of experimental facts, a lot of successful ideas, and a lot of failed ideas. You need to know a great deal of this stuff in order to make progress in the field - even geniuses don't just sit in a room and realize how the real world "must" be without knowing a great deal about how it actually is (Einstein studied for his Ph.D. before he came up with relativity). Too many people think they h

Re:Well yes

[MSZ]

They have to know what has been done already, lest they invent the wheel and fire again and again.

And more seriously, to actually invent something complicated or make significat advancement of science you need to know a lot. Think about, say, genetic engineering, quantum physics or nanotechnology. If I were to try to propose something in these fields I'd probably be laughed out because it will be either completely wrong or blatantly obvious to specialists. I know very little about these fields.

As the sum

Re:Well yes

[tverbeek]

The bottom line is that it's taking individuals longer and longer to "innovate" because there's more and more "foundation" for them to assimilate before they get far enough to come up with something more. To "stand on the shoulders of giants" now takes 30-40 years of climbing.

Re:Well yes

[pmjordan]

While this is quite likely true, university degree programmes these days are focussed on passing exams more than anything else. Just because you're able to pass exams well does not mean you're able to innovate, and, even more importantly, vice versa. Quite frankly, if you're the kind of person who is prone to coming up with original ideas, I doubt you need exams as stimulation. Lectures? Definitely.

~phil

Re:Well yes

[InvalidError]

Modern innovations are also increasingly more likely to be litigated and patented out of business by existing players and patents.

Just like a minefield, innovations can blow up in your face when some other company wants your innovation's market and holds any patents on anything remotely or questionably relevant.

Re:Well yes

[alienfluid]

Why is this a "waste"? Do you expect to do groundbreaking physics research without knowing and understanding the fundamental laws or even basic calculus? There is no point in re-inventing the wheel and so some time spent in reading literature is time well spent.

Re:Well yes

[keesh]

There is a big difference between understanding and memorising.

Re:Well yes

[NoseBag]

Exactly. As is stated in other posts, rote memorization is not "learning". To be able to quickly and automatically integrate new phenomena and data with already-understood principles requires that the "old" info be known forwards and backwards.

Hell, to even IDENTIFY new phenomena required a thorough understanding of past work. Even more importantly, to spot contradictions in past work requires deep understanding of said past efforts.

There really is no shortcut. And since there is more past effort to learn, the longer (perhaps) it takes to reach ones peak.

Re:Well yes

[NoseBag]

I can only speak from my own experience as a hardware design engineer, supervisor, manager, and consultant (now retired) who has interviewed and recommended (or not) hiring scores - if not hundreds - of prospective employees during the course of my career.

If you're getting B's and A's, then don't worry about it too much. 30+ years of experience taught me that I don't want the A+ memorizers. I want the folks that easily made the B+'s and A's but missed perfect marks because they got so passionately caught u

Re:Well yes

[Inspector Lopez]

There is no point in re-inventing the wheel

Often heard, but not true. In fact, wheel re-invention is extremely useful.

• "pretty good" programming languages were available decades ago, but people keep inventing new ones, and some of the new ones are pretty great.
  
• Mathematicians and physicists frequently reinvent things, because better tools become available. example: proofs of Stokes' Theorem and Gauss's Law require a bit of effort in classical calculus, but both become special cases of a much more general theorem when you have the tools of differential forms available.
  
• GNU/linux is pretty clearly the result of wheel reinvention. some of us think this has been a pretty useful activity.
  
• wheel reinvention is obviously useful as a pedagogical tool. How many million times have students laid out some elementary circuit in VLSI, say, an eight bit adder? Would you hire someone to design a chip who had read all the literature, even memorized it, but had never actually laid out a single chip?
  
• wheel reinvention is a critical (and underused) feature of modern science. In principle, peer-review is a kind of wheel reinvention, however it is usually in the form of checking the math, if you will (that's not even always possible http://www.google.com/search?q=four+color+theorem [google.com]) . The best kind of peer review is duplication: can somebody else duplicate the experment? It is a real tragedy in modern Science that whoever was First gets all the credit, when the person who was Second should earn our deep gratitude for independently checking the result.
  

Wheel reinvention provides a critical opportunity for the advance of science and technology, by creating an opportunity to find a better way, and to detect previously undiscovered vulnerabilities.

Re:Well yes

[bit01]

In fact, wheel re-invention is extremely useful.

True, it is called re-search after all.

---

Keep your options open!

That's not what "reinventing the wheel" means.

[fireboy1919]

Using the wheel as a metaphor is pretty close to perfect when you're talking about reinvention.

There's virtually no past experience on which the wheel was based.

Improving someone else's design, as is often done in programming languages, isn't reinventing the wheel. It's improving it. You're creating the product from scratch, but the idea of the product is taken from the old stuff. Same with the eight bit adder.

How many students create an eight bit adder with absolutely no previous experience in math

Re:Well yes

[Inspector Lopez]

Although I understand zkn's sentiment, isn't it really equivalent to a regime in which nothing is checked?

Let me offer an example. Several years ago, a reporter named Byron Acohido wrote a series of articles about rudder problems in the Boeing 737 (http://flash.uoregon.edu/F97/acohido.html [uoregon.edu]). In these articles, BA identified the rudder as the likely cause of two crashes (he's right), and he outlined his perception of slow response and stonewalling by both Boeing and the FAA. BA went on to win quite a few

Re:Well yes

[Crimson Dragon]

The other problem is that the "cutting edge" has been commoditized into something a university sells. Well, let's be fair, it is their version of "cutting edge". We have been sold for so long on this that we forgot that "the cutting edge" is not learned in a school, and so have all the people who used to finance it.

Re:Well yes

[BWJones]

Because these days, everyone is expected to waste three or four years memorising things that can easily be looked up, rather than actually learning anything useful or cutting edge in a degree.

Bogus. If you do not have an understanding of the basics, then you have not prepared yourself to discover anything new. For those individuals who will be productive, they are working at the same time as they are learning. It means more work, but I've also found they are the best students who have the most potentia

ANSWER: Better Nutrition

[reporter]

The quality of nutrition in our diets has improved over the past 100 years. We simply know more today about what we should eat, and people tend to eat better. Our foods are more nutritious. For example, there was once a time when our breads did not include the B-complex vitamins, but today all breads include them.

So, our bodies and especially our brains are in better shape to handle their tasks. Increasingly, the prime human age for technical and scientific breakthroughs will increase.

The flip side

Re:ANSWER: Better Nutrition

[mikael_j]

The flip side is that because we live longer, we must work longer. Everyone seems to be pursuing a longer life, but almost no one wants to work past the age of 65. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you live longer, then you must work longer. That's the rub.

That's a bit of a myth, one of the big problem in today's post-industrial world seems to be how to keep people employed when it takes less and less people to do the same or more work. I've read a couple of good articles (in swedi

You're missing the point, dude

[melted]

Think of all you learn as of power tools. Sure you can go to Home Depot and buy a bunch of tools. Will this make you a good carpenter? No. You don't know how to use the tools and how to produce stuff people may find useful.

Same with science. In order to do research you have to know your tools. Math, physics, chemistry, etc. Four years is not enough to give you these things even on the most basic level. I've spent 6 years getting my M.Sc. degree (not in the US) and I wish I could go back and spend a couple of years more, knowing what I will need in the field.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I now have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay off, so going back to school is not an option financially.

If you're a student right now, absorb the knowledge as efficiently as you can. Go really deep into subjects, understand them on the most fundamental level. Know how to use your tools. You sure won't be able to recall the most intricate details of what you're studying right now three years down the road, but you'll at least know where to look.

Re:Well yes

[lawpoop]

You can't look something up if you don't know what to look for.

We only see what we are prepared to understand. Memorization of facts leads to understanding. When you understand more, you can see more.

These days, knowledge is so specialized, you have to cover a lot of background to even start to see the cutting edge.

Either that

[FidelCatsro]

Or the Nobel commision just take 60-80 years to get around to honouring the scientists and the fact we live longer now on avergae so we have alot more time to relax into it... I would know better but i dont fancy paying for the paper.

Re:Either that

[the eric conspiracy]

Or the Nobel commision just take 60-80 years to get around to honouring the scientists

Well, when I was getting my PhD I worked with John Fenn. He was awarded a share of the 2002 Nobel Prize in chemistry when in his 80's. The interesting thing is that the work that merited this award (ion spray mass chromatography - allowed characterization of large biological molecules and led directly to the development of protease inhibitors) was done by John when he was in his late 70's.

John had a lot of trouble with the administration at Yale at the time because they were trying to force him into retirement. Now of course they are embarresed by the who episode because of Fenn's great accomplishement at the time they were trying to put him out to pasture.

John was a great person to work with too - genuinely cared about his students and an enthsuiastic teacher who did a great job both presenting difficult material as well as acting as a mentor.

I feel greatly priviledged to have known such a man. He is a credit to the human race.

Maleable

[Boronx]

If we had any brains in our heads, we'd be exposing 8-12 year olds to ground breaking work, when their brains are still maleable.

Re:Maleable

[hyfe]

If we had any brains in our heads, we'd be exposing 8-12 year olds to ground breaking work, when their brains are still maleable.

:s/maleable/stupid

A crisis in the making?

[erice]

If we had any brains in our heads, we'd be exposing 8-12 year olds to ground breaking work, when their brains are still maleable.

It wouldn't do much good. 8-12 year olds don't know enough to understand the existing knowledge base and extend it to new areas.

And it sounds like even early 20 somethings are having trouble knowing enough to understand and extend ground breaking work. This could represent a serious problem in the making.

If the original "golden age" conjecture is right, then people above a cer

Re:Maleable

[keesh]

Looks like you didn't bother to learn how to speak English either.

Re:Maleable

[nyekulturniy]

Having a child with dysgraphia, I understand your problem. However, you still need to communicate effectively to express your thoughts. There are not only the words you say, but also the way in which you present words that is important.

To run a spellchecker is a trivial effort and prevents people not noticing your thoughts through the "noise" of poor grammar, spelling, and syntax.

I am fortunate enough to have a facility with English that I do not have with math--I am battering my head over linear equatio

Re:Maleable

[0racle]

You begin learning addition in kindergarten or grade 1. By grade 4/5 you are still just adding numbers. I started multiplication in grade 4, in grade 9 you are still going through your multiplication tables. In grade 1 you are looking at and colouring plants, in grade 9 you are still just looking at plants and colouring pictures of them.

Grades 1 through 9 could be compressed easily into 2 years of school, instead of wasting them by doing the same thing over and over and over again. Your probably right that

Re:Maleable

[HyperBlazer]

First, I'm sorry that your program was so slow. Mine was not: multiplication began in second grade, and the brilliant idea of "self-paced math" got me starting so-called "pre-Algebra" at the end of 4th grade. Then the system failed, but in any case, I was certainly not doing multiplication tables in grade 9.

The issue is that there is a reason that curricula (math in particular) are structured as they are. You know when something that just didn't make sense for the longest time suddenly clicks? That comes

Re:Maleable

[quandrum]

Perhaps I'm being cynical here, but it seems our education system is designed primarily to teach the bulk of the population for a life of boring repetition. In the bulk of jobs today, creativity and critical thinking aren't considered an asset. However, the ability to do the same thing for 8 hours is.

Re:Maleable

[sheck]

Quandrum, judging from your comments, it sounds like you might enjoy reading Gatto's Underground History of American Education [johntaylorgatto.com].

Then again, maybe you already have.

Re:Maleable

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

While there may not be many 12 year olds that could deal with density functional theory, I guarantee that there are many who could handle being introduced to some basic concepts from calculus and quantum mechanics at 12 years old.

I'm not an educator, and I don't know how to "fix the system," but there's probably a lot more we could do to help smart kids learn at something like their full capability. I suspect a lot of schools/teachers just don't have the time to support the bright kids who could start on

Re:Maleable

[HyperBlazer]

there are many who could handle being introduced to some basic concepts from calculus and quantum mechanics at 12 years old.

Here we get into a debate over "basic concepts." I completely agree that some of the ideas from calculus can be taught much earlier: I self-taught intro calc when I was 13 or 14. On the other hand, part of my disagreement with this thread is what I see as a problem in our education system.

See, you can't learn what I would call "the basic concepts of quantum mechanics" until you've

Re:Maleable

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

See, you can't learn what I would call "the basic concepts of quantum mechanics" until you've already learned A LOT of calculus.

When I say "basic concepts" I'm just talking about general exposure to ways in which behavior at the quantum level doesn't match up with the macro world ("here's what happens in the double-slit experiment," "here's what the uncertainty principle generally means," etc.). I don't think Richard Feynman's short book on quantum electrodynamics had a lot of math in it, but it gets

Re:Maleable

[zerbot]

I've explained some basic concepts from calculus and quantum mechanics to kindergarteners, and some can understand them.

Algebra should be taught right along with basic math. There's no excuse for not doing so, and there are at least some schools that do so.

My daughter's class is a multi-grade class (1st through 5th grade), and they are studying electronics at the moment. Many are working on the same sorts of things that I was only exposed to once I got to college.

There are many kids, who while they don

Re:Maleable

[composer777]

I've worked three jobs so far since I've been out of school (I tend not to hop jobs and like to stay for at least a few years). My experience working as a programmer in scientific programming (4 years in GIS data visualization software and nearly a year in bioinformatics) is that scientists and engineers are notoriously bad teachers. The biggest hurdle I have with new employment in a field where I have to acquire new concepts is the fact that no one will take the time to explain anything. You are on yo

Re:Maleable

[composer777]

I just thought that I would add, what makes learning new concepts even worse in the field of bioinformatics is that there aren't any books, or more accurately, very few. Most of the knowledge is contained in journal articles, or even worse, you just have to try to pick it up when people talk, because the research hasn't been published yet. Dejargonizing things and getting to the basic underlying concepts can take quite a while. It's very frustrating.

Life Expectancy taken into account?

[peterpi]

I can't be bothered to RTFA, so could somebody tell me whether the survey takes into account the higher life expectancy today?

Perhaps the percentage of the way through your life that you do your best work has not changed.

And?

[Whyte]

Is this really supprising considering that people, on average, are living longer today than they did 100 years ago?

The product of a century of achievement?

[ettlz]

I hardly think this is surprising, given the sheer volume of knowledge and understanding a researcher must absorb to make any advancement at the cutting edge of science today. It really does take around half a life-time's worth of study.

Building on previous work

[alienfluid]

I think the reason for this is that any new invention/discovery now takes years of reading and understanding the basic work that has already been done. Scientists in the past did not have so much background literature/work that they had to comprehend as the scientists today have to. This is of course not saying that their discoveries were rudimentary or inconsequential, but just that they did not have to spend so much time understading already done work.

farhanahmed.net [farhanahmed.net]

Re:Building on previous work

[NetSettler]

I think the reason for this is that any new invention/discovery now takes years of reading and understanding the basic work that has already been done.

Nah, it's that this is the amount of time it takes to fill out all the intellectual property paperwork before you announce... ;-)

My own little theory

[Adrilla]

Maybe it's because we're working later in life and abstaining from retirement longer so the younger generation has to wait a while longer to get their shots in their fields. There's also probably a lot more a student has to learn than they did 100 years ago before they can even start working on groundbreaking projects.

Innovate vs Invent.

[team99parody]

This is related to the problem with Innovation vs Invention [www.sjl.us]. Big business and the older folk mentioned here may be masters at twisting linguistics and taking credit for "innovations" like business model patents and restrictions on technologies, unlike the old-skool philosophy of inventions based on and leading to information sharing and broad education.

Re:Innovate vs Invent.

[westlake]

unlike the old-skool philosophy of inventions based on and leading to information sharing and broad education.

I can't think of a single significant nineteenth invention that wasn't the subject of prolonged and bitter litigation and intense corporate infighting. The old school way was to fight like hell for the control of new technologies until the money men stepped in and forced cooperation through the formation of a cartel.

Re:Innovate vs Invent.

[westlake]

I can't think of a single significant nineteenth invention

whoops. "ninteenth century invention"

artifact

[moviepig.com]

...most scientists peak in their 20s...

Well, yes, for sheer intellectual heavy lifting. But that doesn't mean we start forgetting things faster than we learn them.

As the population stays healthier longer, you'd expect experience-based advances to have increasingly older authors.

Re:artifact

[John Seminal]

most scientists peak in their 20s Well, yes, for sheer intellectual heavy lifting

I disagree, I think people get smarter in their 30's and are capable of doing more intellectual work in their 30's than 20's.

Hello Captain Obvious

[serutan]

Life expectancy in 1900 for the American male was in the low 50s. Now it's in the high 70s. It stands to reason that the average age of career achievements should be higher. I sure hope the National Bureau of Economic Research didn't use any federal grant money to come up with this valuable insight.

Recognizing acheivement has been pushed back

[Deliveranc3]

6 years... WOOOHOOOO!

Simplest Explanation

[KhromeGnome]

I'd say the easiest explanation is that as the existing fields of research get deeper and deeper, it simply takes longer to get to the cutting edge. During the renaissance, someone like Leonardo could be on the cutting edge of dozens of fields, whereas today, in a field like mathematics or physics, the sheer amount of back-reading you have to do will take you well into your twenties. An interesting question is whether human potential for discovery is ultimately going to be limited by our lifespan or the fac

The prerequisites are so much higher than before

[hung_himself]

Not surprising at all. The number of scientists is so much larger than before and the literature is so expansive that nearly all obvious things are or have been tried by somebody at sometime. Typically, it takes many years of trial and error (mostly error) before a young turk realizes this and starts to be able to narrow down the approaches that might actually work.

Perhaps even more important, is the amount of technology that is required before cutting-edge research can be done. With the possible exception of algorithm research (even then clusters help), this technology is not available to the general public. The young scientist will only have access to this technology in his/her "training" phase (which in biology is usually most of the 20's) while under the supervision of a more established scientist (who would get most of the credit should a breakthrough occur...). Even after starting up a new lab - it takes a few years to get everything in place and funding set up before you can try out those new ideas etc...

No, it doesn't follow that more time is needed

[Morgaine]

Typically, it takes many years of trial and error (mostly error) before a young turk realizes this and starts to be able to narrow down the approaches that might actually work.

No, creative research doesn't work that way, at least not in academia, from my experience on both sides of the student/staff fence.

PhD students are no older today than in earlier times, and in their final year, each of the competent ones are the world's peak thinkers in their particular disciplines. It has always been so, and it m

Re:No, it doesn't follow that more time is needed

[hung_himself]

I disagree and precisely for the reason you state. Ph.D. students *do* exactly as you said - think in a very narrow area and take all the "peripheral" areas as axiomatic. Trouble is, there are thousands of other people who are doing the same thing and flooding the journals with me-too papers which while important, isn't going to result in breakthroughs. Thinking out of the box requires that you question these "peripheral" axioms that define the box. Trouble is that most of these axioms are correct and the b

Late start

[josefkk]

I don't know how many other countries this is applicable to, but in Denmark, at least, the average age of people graduating from the universities (with the Danish equivalent of an MSc degree) is 29 or so. Presumably they aren't ready to participate in any cutting-edge research of the kind which might land them a Nobel Prize until then. Of course the corpus of knowledge in any given scientific field increases with time, and thus researchers are forced to spend a lot of time keeping up with things rather than innovating.

Marriage

[bedouin]

It's because people are getting married later than before.

Re:Marriage

[Leroy_Brown242]

30 is the new 20, they say.

More andmore people are starting their personal lives later. Getting mairried at 30 instead of 20. Longer life spans and such are leading people to not be as rushed to procreate.

Re:Marriage

[Duncan3]

Yea, too bad about the horrific genetic consequences of starting a family at 30 instead of 20.

Good thing we can engineer DNA now.

Re:Marriage

[bedouin]

See this [abc.net.au].

The way in which academia

[BlightThePower]

works now favours older more senior staff so its hardly surprising if they then scoop the plaudits. Funding is increasingly "targeted" making younger researchers fight against stacked odds. Of course when we are talking of public money its hard to argue against the position that money should go to long proven performers. Add to this that academic promotion is largely a matter of dead-mans shoes for anyone who isn't a genuine genius (ie. for people who are merely extremely good at what they do) and there is an aging workforce then I think that could quite easily add up to an average shift of six years. In short I can't access the full text but I think this is a result of policy more than anything else. There are a lot of big ideas floating about but having the means to make them stick is another matter.

Marrying later?

[X]

I wonder how this comapares to the ages at which they get married? There is that theory that once you get married it's hard to have the singlemindedness that leads to great achievements. Of course, it's hard to seperate cause and effect, because a lot of scientists wait until after they've had some career success before getting married.

Re:Marrying later?

[mickyflynn]

Scientist pays less than executive, is less galant than military officer, and less sexy than bar tender. Thus you have to be world famous for something in order to get attention. I bet Openheimer got all kinds of nuke-groopie pussy.

Not really interesting...

[gorehog]

So, the most interesting discoveries are made by people who have masters degrees? Six years is the time it takes to get a master's degree, get a grant and start doing serious work these days. By comparison the Wright brothers were able to work in a bicycle shop. People did not seem to need the same levels of funding to accomplish similar tasks a century ago. I wonder why?

The effect mentioned would simply seem to be a function of longer lifespans and the sorting effect of the education industry.

Of course, I also bet that scientists live longer these days. I also bet that the "scientists making breakthroughs" are coming from a more diverse background now.

Speaking as an inventor

[DanielMarkham]

who just celebrated his 40th birthday, I for one welcome our new geriatric intellectual overlords.

Seriously -- doesn't this make sense? 100 years ago you went around and dug in some rocks and junk piles and you were discovering stuff. Put a magnifying glass on a drop of pond water and it's a whole new world. Nowadays the _baseline_ for inventions has grown much more than before.

For instance, my invention deals with measuring how well intellectual processes are being performed at an organization. To get to where I'm at, you have to first invent IP, then process control, then computer technology, etc -- and for me to come up with it I had to understand enough of that previous work to mutate it into something useful for people.

What concerns me is that with more and more specialization, there seems to be a dearth of "cross pollenization" among sciences. Sure, there are specific programs, but it's almost impossible to find people with a truly broad and moderately deep general knowledge of sciences. My opinion only -- we've got a lot of brillant people but lack enough people who think outside the box and put the pieces together.

Reason why...

[John Seminal]

Most people waste their early lives. Genius is genetic. Smart people were born that way. But most smart people now have to live in a society where schools teach sex education, and ever interest group is adding to the curriculum, trying to form a lasting opinion by introducing topics at a young age. We don't teach history, we teach how discrimination is wrong.

Schools should be hammering away the three R's... reading, writing, and arithmatic.

Instead, kids are in college learning what should be taught in

Re:Reason why...

[benjamindees]

kids are in college learning what should be taught in highschool

Is it just me, or does Slashdot have this same conversation over and over again? I don't think either colleges or highschools want it any other way, which is sad. Education is backwards because the money is at the wrong end.

And dare I say, class size has something to do with it?

Yes, and integration and Federal control over schools has a lot to do with it as well. Separating students by intelligence is frowned upon; the "smart" classes

It's time...

[orkysoft]

"It's time to leave science to the 150-year-olds!"

Peak in their 20's? Wrong!

[Bowling Moses]

From TFA: "innovative activity is greater at younger ages, although great achievement before the age of 30 is not typical. Rather, a researcher's output tends to rise steeply in the 20's and 30's, peak in the late 30's or early 40's [emphasis added], and then trail off slowly through later years (Lehman, 1953; Simonton, 1991)."

I was pretty sure when I read the write-up on /. that this 20's stuff was nonsense because it certainly isn't true in my field (biochemistry). Most people are pushing 30 when they

Great- a $5 article!

[kevcol]

Gee this is a wonderful submission. People are supposed to discuss the topic an abstract with about 10 sentences, unless you want to buy it for $5.

Can't the guy do a little more research to post some other like articles that we don't have to pay for?

Well, I guess no one RTFAs anyway so maybe this isn't any different.

Not surprising

[dtfinch]

People live longer now, so we'll have more old inventors.

lots of reasons

[bcrowell]

I can see lots of reasons why this might be true:

1. They claim a shift of 6 years over the course of a century. Well, life expectancy has gone up a lot in this century.
2. Big Science didn't exist 100 years ago. Today, you have people publishing papers in particle physics with 100 names on them. So out of those 100, who gets the Nobel Prize? The guy who's old enough to be the leader of the project.
3. In certain fields, such as string theory, it just takes a really long time to learn enough mathematics to be able to start working on it. String theory is an extreme example, but, e.g., physics majors today learn Maxwell's equations at age ~20, but when Maxwell did his work in the 19th century, it was cutting edge math, and he was actually known more as a mathematician, not a physicist.
4. In 1900, it was normal for people to get a PhD at, say, age 26, and go straight into research. Today, a PhD usually takes about 5-9 years, and then after that you end up doing a string of postdocs, say 1 to 3 postdocs at 2-4 years each. So you're maybe 34 by the time you even have your first faculty job.

I think there's definitely a certain type of mathematical/scientific work that is most likely to be done by someone very young. A classic example would be the three groundbreaking papers Einstein published in 1905, at the age of 26. Nobody else had the guts or the mental flexibility to come up with relativity, or the photon theory.

But then again, you have, say, Andrew Wiles, who proved Fermat's last theorem. That's a project that took many years of intense work in total solitude, and a young person just wouldn't be able to do it without committing professional suicide -- Wiles could do it because he had tenure, and could afford to fail.

Logic vs. Intuition

[bowloframen]

There was an interesting article on this topic on Slate ( http://www.slate.com/id/2082960 [slate.com]) two years ago. The article points out that the stereotype of the mathematician as a youthful prodigy is no longer the rule but the exception. It includes an interesting quote by mathemtician Henri Poincaré: "[L]ogic and intuition have each their necessary role. Each is indispensable." By logic, I'm guessing he means a more deliberate method of arriving at an answer, something that does require those years of learn

not necessarily!

[thdexter]

"Using data on Nobel Prize winners and great inventors, the author shows that the age at which noted innovations are produced has increased by approximately 6 years over the 20th Century. This runs contrary to accepted wisdom in science, which says that most scientists peak in their 20s." ...unless the age used to be 19-23, of course.

In other news....

[imstanny]

Author & Researcher of article "Innovators are Older Than Ever" turns 60.

Collaborations + Research Labs

[doyen2000]

I think one of the reasons for the increase in age is , as pointed before, there is a to understand and developing intuition with subjects far removed from everyday experience does take time and effort.

The other main reason is these days science requires big resources to test an idea or investigate a concept. For example 1984 Physics Nobel prize was given to Carlo Rubbia and Simon Van der Meer for "their decisive contributions to the large project, which led to the discovery of the field particles W and

It makes sense

[beforewisdom]

This makes sense.

To get into a zone where someone can be innovative s/he needs to educated, needs to have had experience and have formed judgment.

It seems that once a person is in this zone s/he will stay there until judgment from experience deteriorates into rigid thinking ( "set in their ways" ) or the raw physical health of their brain declines.

I can't speak to the former issue, but in regards to the later issue there seems to be more options for staying vital longer for the person who is willing to t

EVERYBODY is six years older now!

[mjfgates]

What's the average age of people in the US these days... forty-something or other iirc? A century ago, most people didn't even LIVE that long, and practically nobody was healthy enough after thirty to do creative work.

What I'm really waiting for is the first 40+ Miss Universe. You KNOW it's going to happen...

Re:Because...

[mabhatter654]

hey, even Einstein had an early marrige and children way before he was famous.. Most famous people are screw-ups that somehow accomplish something brilliant..

Re:Because...

[the eric conspiracy]

hey, even Einstein had an early marrige and children way before he was famous..

Fame and when you actually do the great work totally independent. For example JW Gibbs Jr was not at all understood in his lifetime - now he is being honored on a US stamp along with von Nuemann, Feynmann and McClintoch.

In the case of Einstien, most of his great work was done when he was quite young. Some of his early ideas about relativity trace to concepts that he was thinkig about as early as age 16.

BTW, 2005 is the 100th

Re:Because...

[baadger]

Isn't that what all the geeks who never party and have never got laid say?

Re:Because...

[smittyoneeach]

There is a fine line between creative and procreative minds.
Euler [wikipedia.org] had thirteen children with three surviving sons (not named George) and two daughters surviving.

Born and educated in Basel, he was a mathematical child prodigy. He worked as a professor of mathematics in Saint Petersburg, later in Berlin, and then returned to Saint Petersburg. He is the most prolific mathematician of all time, his collected work filling 75 volumes. He dominated eighteenth century mathematics and deduced many consequences of the newly invented calculus.He was completely blind for the last seventeen years of his life, during which time he produced almost half of his total output.

Thus, the whole 'vision thing' is vastly over-rated.

Re:No duh

[Leroy_Brown242]

So deep. . . .