Rock and Roll and Scientific Innovation

Rock music, as a genre, has its origins in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s. Rock music has many influences, including folk, country, rhythm and blues, and gospel music. Icons of rock music include Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Bo Diddley, The Beatles, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Frank Zappa, ZZ Top, The Doors, The Grateful Dead, Alman Brothers Band, Brian Eno, Carlos Santana, and Nirvana, just to name a few. What these artists have in common and what has been woven into every subculture of rock music are expressions of cultural and political activism where youth revolt against established adult norms and beliefs. This classic generational culture clash is inevitable and perennial. Expressing new values, new identities, and a desire for change with energy, creativity, and imagination is at the very heart of innovation in art, music, and other facets of culture.

Before the torch of responsibility is passed from generation to generation, or pried from the hands of the current generation in charge, there is often some recognition of the need to move ahead in new directions with a revised set of priorities. Just as rock music has been the inexorable call for change in the previous generation, there are new expressions of similar angst today. In 2017, Forbes reported that hip hop music had eclipsed rock music in sales and now is the dominant music genre worldwide. In part, hip hop speaks to the same yearning for change and serves the same powerful outlet that rock music did—expressing themes relating to change, social justice, and the search for identity.

So how do these ideas intersect with scientific innovation? Consider the persistent problem of the increasing age of first-time funding for National Institutes of Health (NIH) principal investigators (Table 1).1 Since the mid-1990s, the NIH has been tracking trends showing that the science and engineering workforce is aging and that it is driving up the average age of NIH grant awardees.2 One factor contributing to the aging workforce was the elimination of mandatory university retirements in 1994. This is just simple demographics. For example, comparisons of the age of medical school faculty to the age distribution of NIH principal investigators show a tight correlation.3 A more recent modeling of these age distributions published by Blau and Weinberg in 2017 shows that this aging can be attributable to the aging of baby boom scientists.4

TABLE 1 - Age of first NIH R01 award for principal investigators (male) Year Number Mean Median 25th percentile 75th percentile 1995 897 40 38 36 43 2000 1027 42 41 37 46 2005 933 42 41 38 46 2010 1259 43 41 38 47 2015 1032 43 42 38 46 2020 1342 44 42 39 47

Data sourced from NIH RePORTER.

In response to this observation, the NIH developed and implemented several early-stage investigator programs that have been in place since late 2000s. These programs give preference to first time awardees and those within a recent time window from when their terminal degree was awarded. The motivation to develop these plans designed to reduce the age of first awards is based on several ideas. First, scientific creativity is thought to peak at a relatively young age.5–7 If that is true, then funding career scientists later in life is less likely to foster the innovations and creativity required to advance knowledge and scientific thinking. One could argue that there exist numerous other institutional constraints capable of stifling scientific creativity and innovation. Nevertheless, modern science is a highly sophisticated endeavor that often requires years of accumulated knowledge, resources, equipment, and expertise to succeed. For this reason, it may make sense to make safer investments in experienced scientists with a proven track record where scientific productivity may be greater.

And therein lies the rub. Is it better to make the safe bet? This is an arguable point. Clearly, the United States has delivered exceptional advances in science and scientific thinking through the existing institutions designed for this purpose. It is hard to know what could have happened if we invested our public resources differently—if we risked more funding on younger investigators. For all the effort, the current programs have done little to reduce the average age of first funding. At this point, the average age trend has leveled off at 44 years, and this is the same for both women and men.

These early-stage investigator funding programs also provide incentives for new investigators to pursue biomedical research careers, and that is essential to maintain and renew our biomedical research workforce. Graduate students with newly minted PhD credentials have numerous career options, and with an aging workforce, it is important to consider policies that can help smooth the transition for the pending generational transition that is ongoing and will continue for the next 15 years. For those interested or actively seeking careers in biomedical research and academia, the timing could not be better.

Michael D. Twa, OD, PhD, FAAO
Editor in Chief
Optometry and Vision Science
University of Houston College of Optometry
Houston, TX

1. Kaiser J. Biomedical Research. The Graying of NIH Research. Science 2008;322:848–9. 2. Lauer M. Long-Term Trends in the Age of Principal Investigators Supported for the First Time on Nih R01-Equivalent Awards. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. Available at: https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2021/11/18/long-term-trends-in-the-age-of-principal-investigators-supported-for-the-first-time-on-nih-r01-awards/. Accessed June 6, 2022. 3. Rockey S. Age Distribution of Nih Principal Investigators and Medical School Faculty. National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research. Last updated: February 13, 2012. Available at: https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/13/age-distribution-of-nih-principal-investigators-and-medical-school-faculty/. Accessed June 6, 2022. 4. Blau DM, Weinberg BA. Why the US Science and Engineering Workforce Is Aging Rapidly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017;114:3879–84. 5. Lehman HC. Age and Achievement. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1953. Published for the American Philosophical Society. 6. Simonton DK. Scientific Genius: A Psychology of Science. Cambridge Cambridgeshire, New York: Cambridge University Press; 1988. 7. Jones BF, Weinberg BA. Age Dynamics in Scientific Creativity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011;108:18910–4.

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif