The Time of Young Scientists

Abstract

T. Bruck et al. (“Empowering Young Scientists,” editorial, 2 April, p. [17][1]) support the formation in various countries of young-scientist academies that younger scientists would be eligible to join, along the lines of the already-formed Global Young Academy. The latter will include an elite group of approximately 200 international young scientists around the age of 35. Although I am a proven advocate of young scientists ([ 1 ][2]), I found the Editorial to be off target. The Editorial suggests that most internationally recognized scientists are senior and that “young scientists rarely receive societal recognition for their work.” The reason for this discrepancy is not that young scientists are excluded; it is that most of them haven't yet produced high-impact work or that their recent discoveries need time to mature and make an impact. There are many examples of scientists less than 40 years old who have won Nobel Prizes or have been inducted into regular national academies. Consequently, there should be no reason or indications for discrimination for age, as speculated in the Editorial. The parallel between science and sports is also off target. In sports, such as the 100-meter dash or tennis, the winner is unequivocal. The referees are only there to keep the score and/or make sure that the contestants follow rules of the game. In science, the question of “who is better” cannot be unequivocally answered because the criteria are subjective and the diversity of the scientific disciplines is enormous. It seems likely that the selection of the so-called 200 young international academicians will be based less on actual merit and more on the strength of the nominations by highly influential scientists who, predictably, will push and lobby for their own proteges. The notion that young academicians will play major roles in national science policies is also not convincing. These highly promising young scientists would benefit more at this stage of their career from being shielded from such activities and encouraged to devote all of their time, energy, creativity, and focus on making important discoveries. There will be plenty of opportunities for them in the future to play roles in policy and management issues. I conclude that academies for young scientists are not only unnecessary, but may damage the careers of highly promising young scientists. Necessarily, these promising future stars will need to divert at least part of their activity to conferences, policy, and management issues, which will distract them from creativity and innovation. Such activities could be easily fulfilled by more experienced senior scientists. Let us also not forget that the vast majority of senior scientists have a genuine interest in promoting the careers of younger scientists and not, as hinted in the Editorial, in grabbing their resources or stealing their societal recognition. After all, we are their natural mentors, and the importance of good mentorship has been emphasized repeatedly in this and other journals. 1. [↵][3] E.P.Diamandis, Clin. Cancer Res. 12 , 669 (2006). [[FREE Full Text]][4] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1185745 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/12/2/669.2.full