is the median age that independent researchers received their first independent grant (R01/R29). I heard this in a very recent talk on NIH funding given by Keith Yamamoto and this shocked me, though this was the median age in 2002 and could have changed. This popped back into my head unexpectedly at a concert of Schubert quartets I went to recently. Schubert had made his contribution to western music by the time he died at 31. Of course he famously left some unfinished work, but it was his age compared to the above 42 that struck me, disparate as his circumstances and field are compared to those of a modern scientist are. The mind wanders like that at my age.
According to the NIH:
The Research Project (R01) grant is an award made to support a discrete, specified, circumscribed project to be performed by the named investigator(s) in an area representing the investigator’s specific interest and competencies, based on the mission of the NIH.
I know there are grants to help young investigators on their way, but it seems like the age for getting the above type of grant to fully pursue specific and independent research interests should be lower? It’s almost enough to make one gray.
How does that compare to other funding bodies (e.g. NSF), and other countries? I suspect the median is lower in Finland, but I don’t have any data to back it up (and the Academy of Finland is on holiday now, so I can’t ask).
42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Coincidence?
Wow – I would agree that it is likely older in the US than in many other countries, but that is still seriously old. Indeed, not THAT much younger than me.
Though I do not have a statistic to hand (perhaps someone else does?) I would guess the age in the UK for getting the equivalent, namely a project grant, would be at least five years younger. I would guess the median age for getting a “tenure track” job in the UK is currently about mid-thirties, and the median age for getting your first independent grant therefore fairly close to that.
The age for getting the first tenure-track appointment has definitely risen in the UK over the last two decades. When I started (late 80s), people were hired into tenure-track jobs off one postdoc or at most two, so likely late 20s-early 30s. I would guess the corresponding age now to be, as I just said, mid 30s, with people having completed at least five postdoc years and often more. Passing probation (getting confirmed tenure) is now much harder too, and likely to get still tougher as the recession bites.
Sarbjit…following on what Austin said, did you learn any details about why the average age is 42? Is it because its taking longer for people to get to the tenure-track level (i.e more years to getting a PhD, multiple postdoc appointments) or are PIs having a tough time get their R01 grants approved and it takes several submissions till one is awarded?
@Austin and Elizabeth According to the Bridges to Independence report, researchers around 35 have some of the highest success rates in application (though it can take multiple application attempts), but the number of tenure-track faculty in this age range has crept down. Taking the figures at face value, it suggests getting to the position where one can apply is becoming harder? I’m really hunting for what the numbers are closer to 2009, my guess is not better given the current climate. There have also been, and are upcoming, changes to grant scoring and application policies that could impact these stats in the near future.
@Caryn I should hand in my geek membership card for even thinking 42 without bringing that up. Memory starts to dim to a sepia-tinged hue at my age (which is a lot <42 BTW!)
You mean I’ve still got
a yearthree months? Fabulous.This kind of statistic is one of the reasons that I decided long ago not to follow a conventional academic career path, by the way.
I know what you mean, really. There are some people who can thrive when things are uncertain, and I’d actually claim to be one of them, but some form of stability is good for anybody’s psyche, especially if you have dependents that can’t live on cat food.
Let’s round it up to a year!
wow…a bit shocking but now that I think of it, young PIs are in their early 40s…
In the end 40’s is not that old. But graduates in other careers seem (anecdotally at least) to progress faster. Job satisfaction’s altogether another thing though.
Glad you wrote that, Sarbjit (40s not being old). I write as a positively ancient person.
I really think that it’s not old (in NYC certainly not). 42 is just a long stretch from, say, starting grad school, and getting an R01 may be pre-tenure also, so doesn’t imply you have a stable position.
Finishing grad school at 30 and doing 10 year postdoc is pretty much par for the course in certain fields/countries, where PhD students and postdocs are happily being held on as long as possible as cheap slaves. Grr. And it doesn’t matter that there are way too many trainees, because the excess get fed up with the whole process halfway through and find something else to do.
Don’t hold it in, Eva – let it all out, we understand.
;)
We do understand Eva and do let it out! I’ve heard and seen some of things you mention (grr x 3)! This discussion is definitely field specific (I think in some fields- ecology- I’ve seen applying for positions very early in their post-doc). I’m not sure about the physical sciences or Finland….
Yes, should say that the kind of ages I was bandying about in the post above are for biosciences.
I suspect reaching PI status younger does help a little bit with the grants as you are (unofficially) slightly badged as a “high-flyer” – of course, to get there young you probably had to come through a “big name” lab too, so that will also be helpful.
In the UK now we are seeing a lot of what I call “second grant syndrome”. When people get a tenure track post (full academic job but on 3-5 yrs probation) typically aged 32-35, they apply for project grant funding (RO1 like) and have a reasonably good rate of success, partly because they are coming off multi-postdocs abrim w ideas, and partly also because the funding system does actually give some “benefit of the doubt” to new people, all else being equal (deserve chance to show what they can do etc etc).
However, once the first 3-yr grant is finishing there is now a BIG hurdle to jump – getting grant no 2. Now the PI is not so shiny and new, and may also be slowed by effort of setting up solo etc etc. So we are seeing people really struggling to get the 2nd grant, even with good papers coming out from their new lab to show productivity.
Since this extra hurdle now sometimes coincides with “show us you’ve done enough to pass probation / be confirmed in the job”, it is often a really tough time. Glad it’s not me having to go through it. I would certainly not have made it in the current climate.
Thanks Austin- there must be stats on this somewhere. Your comments made me wonder whether there is any evidence for similar effects in “bridge” grants here, which should help segue into a larger independent grant. Do applicants fare better because they have a stronger publication record and have a foot in the door, or are applicants then less shiny and new as you say? At least these 2nd grant applicants have experience in the process of grant writing which is a skill in itself.