News & Views item - January 2012

 

 

Study on the Aging of Grantees in US Biomedical Research is it Relevant to Australia? (January 19, 2012)

A study by researchers at Rice University, Houston, Texas published in the December issue of PLoS one, "The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States" examines the question as to whether increasing age of NIH grantees is detrimental to the support of exceptional research. Matthews, Calhoun, Lo and Ho examined data over the 30-year period, 1980 - 2010 and report on the age structure of US biomedical researchers, the average age of scientists awarded a first grant from the NIH as well as the age Physiology or Medicine Nobel Laureates when they undertook their "ground breaking" work.

 

 

They summarise their findings:

 

In the past 30 years, the average age of biomedical researchers has steadily increased. The average age of an investigator at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) rose from 39 to 51 between 1980 and 2008. The aging of the biomedical workforce was even more apparent when looking at first-time NIH grantees. The average age of a new investigator was 42 in 2008, compared to 36 in 1980. To determine if the rising barriers at NIH for entry in biomedical research might impact innovative ideas and research, we analyzed the research and publications of Nobel Prize winners from 1980 to 2010 to assess the age at which their pioneering research occurred. We established that in the 30-year period, 96 scientists won the Nobel Prize in medicine or chemistry for work related to biomedicine, and that their groundbreaking research was conducted at an average age of 41—one year younger than the average age of a new investigator at NIH. Furthermore, 78% of the Nobel Prize winners conducted their research before the age of 51, the average age of an NIH principal investigator. This suggested that limited access to NIH might inhibit research potential and novel projects, and could impact biomedicine and the next generation scientists in the United States.

 

Lead author Kirstin Matthews has told Nature that part of the problem is that the NIH is risk-averse and unwilling to fund nascent work. Is that so different from Australia's NHMRC and ARC?