How productive are older scientists? Some claim to be very productive, citing a bulging CV of papers to justify their claim. Maybe, but Venki Ramakrishnan, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry had this to say about aging and innovative ground-breaking work in his 2024 book, “Why We Die”:

“People who advocate that Americans should work until they are 70 are typically in cushy, remunerative white-collar jobs that are fun and intellectually engaging for octogenarians. Many academics work well into their 80s. Some claim they are doing the best work of their lives, but evidence suggests otherwise — they become brand names, amass resources and funding and manage to churn out first-rate work from their lab but the innovation and most if not all the work, is provided by first-rate young scientists — older scientists have a different role to play as facilitators, not originalists. It is very rare for an older scientist to break new ground.”

That’s what Ramakrishnan had to say about the relationship between age and productivity in science, based on his experience as a scientist in chemistry, who was innovative and deserving enough to win a Nobel Prize, yet realizes that his laboratory years are well past him at 70. Recent data backs his opinions up.

Data from 12.5 million scientists in fields such as computer science, social science mathematics, physics, medicine, chemistry and biology was collected and analyzed with very much the same result as Ramakrishnan suggests: scientists in the later decades of their career were far less likely to come up with truly ground-breaking, innovative work — the kind that has the power to shake up and significantly change a field (much as AI has done in recent years).

Older scientists were more likely to cite their own or other research dating to their more active periods in their own research and less likely to cite recent, possibly innovative research leading in different, perhaps challenging directions compared to their own research.

At the highest level, that’s what’s reflected in winners of Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry and medicine. Although it’s not unusual for these scientists to be in their 70s or older when they win their Nobel Prize, the work that led to their Nobel Prize was, characteristically, carried out several decades earlier.

The chief problem posed by older faculty hanging on in into their 70s or more is that by staying, they limit opportunities for young scientists to secure jobs as teachers and scientists in universities. And worse, might stifle field-changing innovative research.

That’s what probably happened to research in Alzheimer’s disease, which was stuck for decades with the “amyloid model” based on the notion that the disease was caused by the accumulation of beta-amyloid (and tau) proteins — hence the treatment of patients with drugs designed to rid the brain of those accumulations to treat the disease.

Clinical trials revealed that several monoclonal antibody drugs were very good at clearing the brain of beta-amyloid. But evidence those drugs significantly changed the curve of cognitive decline was far less impressive.

The whole field was muddled by pharmaceutical companies and clinical trialist physicians desperate for success, as well as, some would claim, corruption.

Senior researchers sometimes have advantages: a broad historical grasp of their field, laboratories that are often well-resourced, experienced colleagues to work with and important connections with others in the field.

However, those same laboratories can be stifling for budding young scientists who challenge traditional views and are open to fresh ideas.

There’s yet another problem. Too many established scientists may make it nearly impossible for even the most gifted aspiring young scientist to see a path to a career position.

These days many live from paycheque to paycheque, dependent on funds that in the current uncertain funding climate, are drying up, especially in the U.S. but elsewhere too.

Science in the U.S. and Europe has been in golden age for funding, public and private since the Second World War — that is, until recently.

The balance has solidly shifted toward China for the basic sciences and engineering. This year, China overtook the U.S. for high-quality institutions and innovation in the last decade.

For example, this year in chemistry, China took two-thirds of the top 100 spots, including 23 of the top 25 spots. That’s amazing.

And unlike Western institutions where faculties and resources are aging, in China, most of the up-and-coming scientists are relatively young who, based on recent evidence, are more likely to produce ground-breaking research, which in turn fuels their economy and trade.

The Western world needs innovation and at least so far in AI, U.S. companies have the lead. But probably not for long given China’s long-term investment in the sciences.

Our response to China’s success should be to plan for the long-term, not the next election cycle, foster and reward excellence and invest in the young, if we hope to keep up with our competitors around the world. Pax Americana and America Über Alles is over.

Dr. William Brown is a professor of neurology at McMaster University and co-founder of the InfoHealth series at the Niagara-on-the-Lake Public Library.