Now on ScienceBlogs: HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute's Insider Reveals Secrets

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Thoughts from Kansas

You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain

Search

Profile

Josh at work Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is formerly a doctoral candidate at the University of Kansas, in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not battling creationists or modeling species ranges, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive


Thanks!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Subscribe to TfK:

Accolades

Best of Kansas City

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Search Now:
Search Amazon.com
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

    follow me on Twitter

    « Undermining the troops to make us all sicker | Main | Disco. Inst. is wrong on everything »

    The Aging of Science?

    Category: Policy and Politics
    Posted on: December 21, 2009 5:05 PM, by Josh Rosenau

    Kevin Drum reproduces the following graphic (from here via here) under the title "The Aging of Science."


    200912211609
    The problem is that this isn't about the Aging of Science. First, most scientists don't seek NIH grants, so this would, at best, show the aging of medical research. But really, it represents an intentional and ill-considered policy at NIH of pushing for larger grants to a smaller fraction of applicants. Before you give researchers millions of dollars, they need to have encouraging results, so they need to have established research programs with solid results. So NIH funds older researchers, usually as part of large, multi-collaborator projects with relatively conservative aims.

    Younger scientists exist, and indeed exist in ever greater numbers. Graduate programs keep churning out PhDs, but the number of NIH grants has declined pretty steadily. So people take post-doctoral research positions in ever greater numbers, often not just once, but several times. Where people could have begun settling into a tenure-track position by their early 30s a few decades ago, it's not uncommon for people to do 2, 3, or even more 2-year post-docs, keeping young scientists from being able to settle down and start their own research projects until their mid to late 30s.

    Here's data from an NSF study of post-doctoral work by PhDs in 2006:

    200912211656
    From this, we can more or less reconstruct the trend by reading each group backwards. The number of life science PhDs who never did a postdoc has dropped, while those with one or more has grown, those with 2 or more has increased and now may be dropping (but note that people <5 years out of their doctoral program may yet seek out a second post-doc), and there's no discernible trend among those with 3 or more post-docs. Those trends don't speak to science (or scientists) aging, but to an increase of the age at which scientists become independent researchers, getting their own grants, forming their own labs, hiring their own post-docs.

    It isn't clear that this trend benefits science in any way, and lots of reasons to think it's harmful.

    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook

    TrackBacks

    TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/127659

    Comments

    1

    Isn't this at least partly explained by aging baby boomers?

    Posted by: Quietmarc | December 22, 2009 3:47 PM

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.