Young Einstein is a modern myth
The romantic ideal of a young genius changing the world with the stroke of a pen bears little resemblance to modern science. Michael Biercuk explains why.
Einstein once remarked that a person "who has not made their greatest contribution to science before the age of thirty will never do so".
Einstein, who was 26 when he first proposed the special theory of relativity in 1905, lived in a time when it was it was common for young scientists to produce breakthroughs.
For example, Werner Heisenberg, a father of modern quantum physics, produced his Nobel Prize-winning breakthroughs between the ages of 23 to 25 — an age where most of us are still trying to figure out what we're doing with our lives.
The notion of high-performing graduate students or junior research scientists making Nobel Prize-winning discoveries before the age of 30 has become ingrained in the cultural perception of science and scientists.
But it bears little resemblance to reality. At least not today.
Age of great achievement
A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences dispels this myth by examining the "Mean Age of Great Achievement" leading to an eventual Nobel Prize, across several disciplines.
Looking at the mean age at which scientists over the last century made their Nobel Prize-winning breakthrough, the study shows a rather a sharp decline in the frequency of great achievements by age 30 since about 1920, across physics, chemistry and medicine. Young scientists do not dominate the realm of major discovery — at least not any longer.
The discipline in which I work, physics, possesses an interesting maximum in the frequency of great achievements by age 30, centered around the 1930s. According to the study (and history) this relates directly to the creation of quantum mechanics.
This branch of physics was dominated by substantial theoretical contributions in which the development of new ideas was key, and in which old ideas could be discarded when shown to be incorrect. The authors of the study substantiate this interpretation, examining the extent to which major new and significantly impactful work drew on established knowledge or new ideas.
Remarkably, it is this anomalous period of great and revolutionary discovery in the 1920s and 30s, centred around the formulation of quantum mechanics, that primarily established the image of the twenty-something genius scientist.
Science in the 21st century
More generally the data show — unsurprisingly — that the nature of the training program and relative importance of theoretical work in a field has a large impact on the age at which great achievements are made.
How does this relate to science today?
First, as the authors of the study point out, it's quite uncommon for modern science students to receive their terminal degree before age 25, while this was the norm in the early 20th century.
This trend comes from a few different sources, including changes in society, work experience, and the like. But moreover it reflects a general lengthening of scientific education programs. Australia and the UK are unusual in aiming for a short three-year PhD, and it is becoming increasingly clear that a degree of this length is generally not competitive with international programs in the US or EU, where median degree completion times are five to six years.
The lengthening of degrees abroad (and hopefully soon at home) — is being driven by a change in science as an enterprise, a fact reflected in the published data.
An unfortunate reality is that while in principle new ideas can and occasionally do supplant old, for the most part scientific research today involves delving deeper in a specific area, rather than upending the whole of a discipline with a few key insights. And this means that more and more "basic" knowledge is required by a modern practicing scientist.
For instance, while I specialise in quantum physics, I still have to know, in detail, classical mechanics and electromagnetism, because these theories explain most of the world around me, and the performance of the vast majority of equipment in my lab. I do not get to fully abandon the old for the new. I have to learn both — the development of science now requires greater accumulation and integration of knowledge.
But there's more. In physics, the era in which easily accessible phenomena such as light and electricity could be studied in detail with (reasonably) straightforward experiments and clever insight is largely gone.
Complex experimental studies
Science is becoming increasingly reliant on complex experimental studies designed to access extreme regimes of nature. In physics this encompasses the nanoscale dominated by quantum physics at very low energies, as well as the subatomic regime of quarks and other exotic particles or the breadth of the cosmos at very high energies.
Look no further than the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider for an example of an extraordinarily complex experiment. An experiment that has taken decades to become operational.
Closer to home, in my subfield we use individual trapped atoms to probe exotic effects of quantum physics. This, however, does not simply require knowledge of quantum physics and atomic physics. It also requires technical skills in ultra-high-vacuum systems, ultra-stable laser system development, optics, nonlinear optics, analog and digital electronics, radiofrequency and microwave engineering, computational methods, and hardware-software interfacing, to name a few. It even requires students be conversant in heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning in order to ensure that the environmental conditions in the laboratory are sufficiently regulated to allow our experiments to proceed.
Most graduate students participating in this enterprise require years of training to acquire the skill-set necessary for them to lead new scientific developments, and those developments generally come from group-based activities under the guidance of a senior researcher.
Of course, strokes of genius do come along, and there are occasionally very young and very talented students earning doctoral qualifications in science.
But this is quite unusual. Generally, the complexity of experiments, and the need for extended technical training mandates greater time before major discoveries are made.
And this reality is reflected in the statistics. For instance, since 1980 the mean age of Nobel Prize-winning achievements in physics … is 48.
Science is just not as 'simple' as it used to be. It's often a long, hard slog — even for modern Nobel laureates. The romantic ideal of a young genius changing the world with the stroke of a pen bears little resemblance to modern science. And it would be better if society recognised the extremely hard work, long hours, and dedication required for science to advance.
About the author Dr Michael J. Biercuk is an experimental physicist and the primary investigator in the Quantum Control Laboratory at the University of Sydney. which is part of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems. His specialties include quantum control in atomic systems, dynamical error suppression, nanoelectronics, and precision metrology.
Published 07 December 2011