Prologue: Research on the demography and economics of aging

Abstract

of centers and training programs for the demography of aging. At that time, each center and training program was so small and specialized that students and faculty at the various institutions were exposed to only fragments of the research field; there was clearly a need for greater integration of the many perspectives and traditions. The same set of concerns applied to the BSR at the National Institute of Aging (NIA). Some forum, akin to the Gordon Conferences in biology and related fields, was needed to bring together the players in the fields of demography and the economics of aging. The initial focus was on providing faculty and students with the kinds of overviews that appear in annual review compilations, coupled with current research. This endeavor has succeeded far beyond our initial expectations, and significant appreciation is due to RAND and the Demography and Economics of Aging Centers. The 15th Anniversary Conference special issue provides an occasion to review progress in the field since the 10th anniversary, as well as a chance to consider future directions. Six years ago, in on Population Aging at NIA: Retrospect and Prospect, I traced some of the history of population aging within the Behavioral and Social Research Program and speculated on its future (Suzman 2004). The epilogue discussed the influence of organizational structures, individuals, scientific currents in the disciplines, and perhaps lucky happenstance. Throughout the history of the population program in BSR, there has been a constant interplay between BSR staff and members of the scientific community to help chart BSR's future. In some notable cases, this endeavor was assisted by efforts made by the Population Association of America. This fertile set of interchanges has continued. The basic two-branch (population- and individual-level) organizational structure of the BSR division (formerly a program) did not change, except that the boundaries between the branches became noticeably more fluid and permeable as psychology, cognitive science, and genetics became more incorporated into demography and economics. For example, psychologists in the individual branches led initiatives in behavioral economics and neuroeconomics and were also at the forefront of helping to integrate genetics into our longitudinal studies. It has been advantageous to BSR that its recent organizational structure and culture has encouraged fluid and dynamic interdisciplinary interactions. As central National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, in what was initially called the Roadmap and is now known as the Common Fund, increased, several new NIH-wide initiatives were started in BSR and were