Biomedicine is prematurely going gray. Despite soaring funds for biomedical research over the past few decades, new and young investigators are finding it increasingly difficult to begin academic careers in this field. From 1980 to 2010, the average age of a new investigator funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. government agency that funds the majority of biomedical research, rose from 36 to 42. Some of this increase can be attributed to the length of current graduate school programs. However, the majority is a result of the significant amount of time that young scientists spend as postdoctoral researchers or in nontenured research and lecturer positions — jobs that lack the independence or prestige of tenure track positions. Scientists take these jobs because they are available, and because of the lack of better-paying, longer-term positions in their specialties.
Can this be sustainable? While some eager and dedicated young scientists are willing to make this time commitment, aren’t we discouraging many highly qualified students from entering the field by expecting them to labor for decades at low pay (average salary for a postdoc is $40,000) before giving them academic independence — if they ever do actually gain independence? And will this impact U.S. biomedical research and innovation in the future?
In collaboration with my Baker Institute colleague Vivian Ho, I looked into these issues with the goal of determining when innovative ideas are most likely to occur in biomedical research: early, mid or late career. In our article “The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States,” we analyzed biomedical Nobel Prize winners, who are regarded as top scientists in their field, to ascertain their age when they conducted their award-winning research. As expected, there was a wide range of ages from 24 to 72, with the average age being 41. This is younger than the average age of an investigator funded by the NIH (51) as well as the average age of new investigators (42). One would expect that scientists would first receive funding and then do innovative research. NIH might be overlooking or missing these opportunities to fund innovative research by funding older scientists whose research is already proven.
To prevent any potential loss of early career researchers to other fields, NIH should increase its investment in programs that encourage and support scientists both during graduate school and as beginning professors. These programs should include faculty mentorship in addition to financial support. Universities must also play a role by ensuring their science and engineering graduate students learn communication and writing skills concurrently with the development of scientific research skills. This is particularly critical in regard to the preparation of peer-reviewed research publications and grants.
Inaction could result in a biomedical research environment lacking talented scientists, leaving the future of this field uncertain. By supporting young researchers, groundbreaking biomedical discoveries can continue to be made.
- Read the Dec. 28, 2011, article “The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States” in the online journal PLoS ONE.
- Read the Rice University news release, “Nobel history illustrates gap in grants to young scientists.”
Kirstin Matthews is a fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute. Her research focuses on the intersection between traditional biomedical research and public policy. Matthews’ current projects include the Baker Institute International Stem Cell Policy Program, the Civic Scientist Lecture Series and policy studies in research and development funding, genomics and climate change.