PJ O’Rourke, the US journalist and humourist wrote a book of essays entitled ‘Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut’. Tempting as it is for a man in his fifties to make this point it is not my purpose in writing.
We have a cult of youth in academia, certainly in the sciences. This widespread cult pays its obeisances to the dynamism of the ‘early career’ researcher and ‘junior research fellow’. The cult shows sufficient awareness of the strictures of age discrimination legislation not to actually say ‘young’ though we are clearly to understand that is what is meant. The basis of the cult is that, supposedly, the young are particularly gifted with energy, creativity and the willingness to break the bonds of convention. These judged as the sole prerequisites of scientific achievement.
Evidence for this contention is drawn from the observation that in some areas of work, mathematics being a case in point, younger researchers are more frequently associated with ground breaking developments. It is propped up by examples of youthful genius culled from the history of science. It owes most however to the introspection of men (and yes, I mean this) in their fifties and sixties who either feel their creative powers waning or reflect, who knows how accurately, on their own careers.
None of this, I would humbly submit, is a sound basis for policy. The fact that younger scientists perform well in an age-diverse scientific community does not necessarily suggest that concentrating on (or worse concentrating) younger scientists is the way to achieve the desired outcomes. It is also unclear whether it is the career imperatives and personal situation of younger researchers that drives productivity rather than youthful creativity. Thus, the harsh ‘up or out’ US tenure system achieves its results by very direct economic and job incentives and not by any fairy dust sprinkled on younger researchers.