SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
their first major grants may be playing a role. But he sees this aging phenomenon in fields, such as mathematics, that don’t require a lot of capital expenditure. “So it’s Scientists are doing their most creative not just about big grants,” he says. work LATER IN LIFE, study suggests The second correlation Jones and Weinberg noted was that there’s been a shift in what the Nobel Prizes have been awarded THE HARD WORK and creative thinking logical progress is important because it is for. The awards have moved from theoretiit takes to do research worthy of winning the primary driver of economic prosperity, cal work, where younger scholars may be a Nobel Prize is certainly enough to give so understanding creativity—the capacity able to think outside the field’s foundascientists a gray hair or two. But these days, to produce new ideas—becomes essential tional knowledge, to experimental work, there’s probably a simpler explanation for to understand economic progress,” he exwhere researchers with more experience why these bright lights of science are sportplains. “Economists have noted for some may have an edge. To illustrate this point, ing gray hair—they’re older. time that the effort we put into R&D is inthey found that during the revolution in According to a study by economists creasing substantially, including the numquantum mechanics theory—when scienBenjamin F. Jones, of Northwestern Uniber of people who work in R&D and the tists were making breakthroughs outside of versity, and Bruce A. Weinberg, of Ohio number of dollars we spend on R&D. We physics’s foundational knowledge—there State University, the average age at which also noticed the growth rate of the world was a sharp decline in the age at which NoNobel Laureates in Physiology or Medieconomy has not increased. An implication bel Laureates in Physics did their prizewincine, Physics, and Chemistry ning work. This shows that do their prizewinning work “the age for doing Nobel PEAK YEARS More chemistry Nobelists are doing their is on the rise (Proc. Natl. Prize-winning work is more prizewinning work later in life. Acad. Sci. USA, DOI: 10.1073/ a function of historical peChemistry Laureates, % pnas.1102895108) More than riod than discipline because 70 half of the Nobel Laureates the nature of the discipline Age when prizewinning research was done _ 51 _ 30 ◼ 31–40 ◼ 41–50 ◼ > ◼< in Chemistry from 1901 to changes over time,” com60 1960 did their prizewinning ments Dean Keith Simonwork by the time they were ton, a psychology professor 50 40. Since 1961, prizewinners at the University of Califor40 were more likely to have nia, Davis, who studies age done their acclaimed work and scientific creativity. 30 after their 40th birthday. The Nobel Laureates At first blush, Jones and who spoke with C&EN 20 Weinberg’s study may seem about Jones and Weinlike good news for researchberg’s study didn’t find the 10 ers who don’t have to think results all that surprising. 0 0 of themselves as past their Roald Hoffmann, a Cornell 1901–20 1921–40 1941–60 1961–80 1981–2000 2001–08 prime just because they’re University chemistry proYear of Nobel Prize past their 40th birthday. But fessor who shared the 1981 SOURCE: National Bureau of Economic Research Jones tells C&EN that the Nobel Prize in Chemistry implication of his finding is for his theoretical work on a bit less rosy: Scientist may be spending is that the contribution per person of these the course of chemical reactions, did his their most creative years being trained, as R&D workers to overall economic progress prizewinning work in his twenties. But he doctoral students and as postdocs, rather is declining. One reason I’ve looked at this thinks he’s still as creative now as he was than doing their own innovative research. line of research is to try to understand why, then. “My memory may not be as good, but “There’s a long-standing view that peoas individuals, we might be becoming less my intuition is better. I’m much better at ple are at their most productive as innovaproductive in innovation.” making connections now than when I was tors early in their life cycle,” Jones says. But, young,” he says. he points out, if it’s true that people have to JONES AND WEINBERG note two correla“One of the nice things about the Nobel become experts before they can innovate, tions that may explain the trend in NobelPrize is that it’s not a lifetime achievement then scientists are spending more of their ists’ most creative years. First, scientists award,” observes Robert F. Curl Jr., a Rice years training and less of their time innovatare taking longer to earn their highest University chemistry professor who shared ing. Consequently, their lifetime contribudegree. “It does seem with the extendthe 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the tions as scholars are going to be smaller. ing Ph.D. and the rise of the postdoc as an discovery of fullerenes—work he did when Jones estimates the decline in a given reinstitution, that the path to becoming an he was over 50. “It’s all about discovery, and searcher’s career output is as high as 30%. independent researcher in many fields has you don’t have to be a genius to stumble Researchers who aren’t innovating, gotten longer,” Jones says. Along these across something that has a major impact.” Jones notes, aren’t contributing to technolines, Jones also acknowledges that the Such discoveries can come at any stage in a logical progress. “To an economist, technoincreasing age at which researchers secure researcher’s life.—BETHANY HALFORD
AGE AND CREATIVITY
WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG
39
DECEMBER 5, 2011
