Old Scientists Dominate Funding

I've written about this multiple times before, but it's never to soon to visit the skewed age distribution of NIH grants, via Marginal Revolution:

Paul Romer is interviewed in From Poverty to Prosperity, an excellent new book from Arnold Kling and Nick Schulz.  When asked about threats to progress Romer says the following:
One factor that does worry me a little is the demographic changes. Young people, I think, tend to be more innovative, more willing to take risks, more willing to do things differently and they may be very important, disproportionately important, in this innovation and growth process.

Follow the link to read further comments about this problem specifically as applies to NIH grants.

Kevin Drum also weighs in with some numbers:

In 1970, 61% of grants were given to researchers who were 35 or younger.  In 1980 that fell to 29%, in 1990 to 9%, in 2000 to 4% and in 2007 to 3%. That's a huge drop, and 35 isn't exactly spring chicken age, either.  Make of this what you will.

I would prefer not to frame this discussion in terms of who's more innovative - younger or older scientists; there are some very productive older scientists (but also some well-funded older scientists who are clearly bereft of original ideas).

It's not a question of competition between younger and older scientists. The issue is how younger scientists spend their careers: free to develop their scientific interests and instincts, and define their own research problems, or work primarily on some problem developed by someone else. When the apprenticeship becomes too long, creative instincts can be snuffed out.

Read the feed: