The Time of Young Scientists Response (2010)

COMMENTARY Quantum information and everything Now at bat LETTERS I BOOKS I POLICY FORUM I EDUCATION FORUM I PERSPECTIVES LETTERS edited by Jennifer Sills The Time of Young Scientists T. BRUCK ET AL. (“EMPOWERING YOUNG SCIENTISTS,” EDITORIAL, 2 APRIL, P. 17) 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), 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 discrep- ancy 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 indica- tions for discrimination for age, as speculated in the Editorial. The parallel between science and sports is also off target. In R Readers’ Poll sports, such as the 100-meter dash or tennis, the winner is unequivo- The Time of Young Scientists cal. The referees are only there to In their 2 April Editorial,* T. Bruck et al. suggest that keep the score and/or make sure academies for young scientists (~35 years old) can help that the contestants follow rules early-career researchers earn the support and recogni- of the game. In science, the ques- tion they deserve. E. P. Diamandis argues in a Letter tion of “who is better” cannot be that such societies will distract young scientists from unequivocally answered because their work at the bench. T. Bruck et al. respond that the the criteria are subjective and message to focus only on science “runs contrary to the the diversity of the scientiﬁ c dis- interests of young scientists and the broader scientiﬁ c ciplines is enormous. It seems community.” In the coming years, there is likely to be likely that the selection of the so- a growing focus on science communication; scientists called 200 young international will be asked to explain their science and the scientiﬁ c process to the general public and policy-makers. academicians will be based less on actual merit and more on the How much time should the next generation strength of the nominations by of young scientists devote to nonresearch highly inﬂ uential scientists who, activities? predictably, will push and lobby ❒ Less than 1% for their own proteges. The notion that young acade- micians will play major roles in national science policies is also ❒ More than 50% not convincing. These highly promising young scientists would Vote online at www.sciencemag.org/ beneﬁ t more at this stage of their extra/polls/20100806-1.dtl career from being shielded from such activities and encouraged to *T. Bruck et al., Science 328, 17 (2010). devote all of their time, energy, Polling results reﬂ ect the votes of those who chose to participate; they do not represent a random sample of the population. creativity, and focus on mak- ing important discoveries. There 6 AUGUST 2010 will be plenty of opportunities for them in the future to play roles in policy and manage- ment issues. I conclude that academies for young sci- entists are not only unnecessary, but may damage the careers of highly promising young scientists. Necessarily, these promis- ing 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 activi- ties could be easily fulﬁ lled by more experi- enced 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 steal- ing 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. ELEFTHERIOS P. DIAMANDIS Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON M5T 3L9, Canada. E-mail: ediamandis@mtsinai.on.ca Reference 1. E. P. Diamandis, Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 669 (2006). Response DIAMANDIS HAS RAISED A NUMBER OF IMPOR- tant concerns about the role of young scien- tists in the science-policy dialogue. However, we strongly believe that his message—focus on science—runs contrary to the interests of young scientists and the broader scientiﬁ c community. In many countries, particularly less- developed countries, the value of science and scientists is underestimated. Young scientists are particularly vulnerable. The societal rec- ognition we alluded to in our Editorial does not immediately concern the Nobel Prizes or membership in National Academies referred to by Diamandis, which are quite naturally connected with seniority. Of greater concern VOL 329 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org Published by AAAS