A Cult of Youth

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.

The cult of youth indirectly feeds gender discrimination by reinforcing stereotyped career patterns. It also feeds a destructive 'lab culture' and distorts career progression, prolonging early career uncertainty. It is a poor way to build a scientific community which should necessarily rest upon a balance of roles and different courses of individual development (and, closer to home, it is certainly a poor way to build an institute).

Scientifically, an exclusive focus on early career researchers is a bad choice. Later and mid-career scientists can possess the networks, the breadth of experience and the developed personal skills, including leadership, that are of great value. With an established reputation they are also capable of taking risks on interdisciplinary work and on unpopular subjects.

An early-career focussed strategy is wasteful of talent. We all recognise the risk that scientists can run of losing their way in mid-career it is thus sensible to devote at least equal effort to ensuring that these scientists remain productive contributors. With the end, in the UK and surely elsewhere, of a compulsory retirement age, driven both by equity concerns and the economic imperatives of an ageing population, we surely need to look more broadly.

It is possible to think of alternatives to directing resources to early career support and the narrowing it implies. I would like to tentatively suggest looking not at career phases but instead at transitions: the transition to independent research, the transition to a sustainable research programme, the transition to leadership, the transition to and from management roles, the transition to retirement or tapering down, and so on. Often creative opportunity comes at these transition points which are different for, and experienced differently by, each individual.

So, is this my age speaking? Probably, but no less than the votaries of the cult of youth.