Senior Scientists Face Funding Hurdles, Mandatory Retirement

In 1984, biologist Maurice Hilleman - a Lasker award winner, a recipient of the National Medal of Science, and a man who had pioneered more than a dozen vaccines - found himself out of a job. Hilleman, who had worked for 27 years at the West Point, Pa.-based Merck Sharp and Dohme Laboratories, was a senior vice president and director of vaccine research at the pharmaceutical company. The fact that he was one of the firm's most productive scientists and that he didn't want to leave his post didn't matter. Likewise, biologist Marvin Weinstein, formerly vice president for microbiology and DNA research at Schering-Plough Corp. in Madison, N.J., found himself unemployed nine years ago. Weinstein, who had joined the company in 1956 as a bench scientist and worked his way through the ranks, was a corporate executive as well as a scientist. The problem? Both Hilleman and Weinstein had reached the age of 65. As executives, they were exempt from age-discrimination laws that prohibit mandatory retirement for most workers. Among their peers in industry as well as in academia, Hilleman and Weinstein, both now in their 70s, are exceptional in that they remain professionally active in their field on a full-time basis. While hard statistics are difficult to come by, it appears that a good number of scientists disengage from research and other career-related activities - often involuntarily - owing to a lack of job opportunities and a minimum of research support for those who have reached the traditional retirement age of 65. Even those who are able to find postretirement opportunities say they would have preferred to remain in their career positions, but they were required to leave under prevailing retirement laws. YEAR OF BIRTH MALES FEMALES 1900 46.3 48.0 1985 71.2 78.2 2050 75.5 83.6 Source: National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Health "Hell, no, I didn't want to retire," says Hilleman, who, at 70, says he continues to work between 60 and 70 hours per week as a consultant to his former employer. Weinstein didn't want to retire either. "It was mandatory," he says. "I had to leave." "We definitely have talent available and [older] scientists who want to do things," says Laura Mann, a staff assistant with the Senior Scientists and Engineers Program, a pilot project of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. According to Mann, the program was launched in an effort to place senior scientists in advisory and other positions with often understaffed or inexperienced user organizations, such as the Office of Technology Assessment and various U.S. congressional committees. Recently, AAAS surveyed 300 senior scientists over the age of 50 in the Washington, D.C., area. From their responses, AAAS found that 65% of older scientists would like to remain active in their scientific fields. What's disturbing is that opportunities for these people to continue their work appear to be minimal at best. The reasons range from longstanding negative beliefs concerning the physical and mental capabilities of older people to laws that require not only those in the sciences, but also many executive-level workers and university professors - regardless of their abilities - to retire by a prescribed age (see accompanying story). Moreover, new research indicates that the great number of scientists approaching 65 will similarly halt work once they officially retire - either voluntarily or involuntarily - from career positions. According to one recent study of 133 elected AAAS fellows, 96 of whom were still employed at the time of the survey, 42.3% anticipate little or no professional activity following retirement. The figure compares with 35.5% who planned to remain active. The rest were undecided. Such statistics are cause for alarm in the scientific community, which many sociologists and demograph- ers warn is in for a severe shortage of trained and experienced personnel, especially when the post-World War II "baby boom" generation of researchers and teachers approaches 65. Senior scientists who want to continue working are often prohibited from doing so, while, overall, colleges and universities aren't producing enough scientists to meet the country's needs. Research shows that all scientific disciplines have suffered a significant decrease in the influx of new talent over the past 10 years or so. While the total number of employed scientists is growing, it's not growing fast enough to support the nation's expanding need for academic and industrial scientists. "In the early 1970s, we were probably turning out too many scientists," says Michael Finn, director of studies and surveys in the National Research Council's Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel. "Now, it appears we don't have enough [new] scientists to replace the people who retire, plus sustain the annual growth rate in demand for scientists." The council pegs that growth rate at 4% per year. AGE NUMBER EMPLOYED PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 24 and under 174,500 4 25 - 29 765,100 17 30 - 34 577,500 12 35 - 39 699,400 15 40 - 44 638,900 14 45 - 49 491,700 11 50 - 54 429,300 9 55 - 59 407,400 9 60 - 64 293,200 6 65 - 69 96,700 2 70 plus 38,200 0.5 No Report 14,600 0.5 TOTALS: 4,626,500 100 Source: National Science Foundation - 1986 data "We accommodate this somewhat by allowing foreign graduates to stay [and work in the United States]," says Finn, "but even if we allowed all of these graduates to stay, we could just barely meet the requirements." Some say a solution to this deficit is the creation of viable employment and research opportunities for older investigators who are able and willing to continue working. Anecdotal evidence indicates that few opportunities now exist. But, the number of "graying" scientists who might take advantage of such opportunities is increasing. In 1900, for example, only 4% of U.S. citizens were 65 or older. Today, more than 12% of the population falls into this category. By 2030, this figure will climb to 20%, according to a 1988 U.S. Senate report on aging. Additionally, the average American is living and remaining active considerably longer now than in the late 19th century, when the notion of the 65-year-old retiree was put forth. As sociologist Matilda Riley, associate director of behavioral and social research at the National Institute on Aging (NIA), notes, "Today, many people will live to be functional until the age of 85 or so." Taken together, the "graying" and "pipeline" issues confronting the sciences have prompted several professional organizations to look into how the U.S. might better use the resources of its older and most experienced scientists. Ongoing research includes numerous university-based studies concerning the relationship between age and scientific research performance. The National Academy of Sciences is currently investigating the ways in which eliminating mandatory retirement for science professors might affect science education. To date, however, no one set of conclusions has been reached or has become widely accepted. In the meantime, many senior scientists maintain that they are being prematurely put out to pasture despite both a desire and the physical and mental wherewithal to continue their work. Hilleman speculates that the leading cause of this "horrendous waste" of experienced talent may be that "no one wants to bite the bullet and make an objective determination of who's brain dead and who isn't." In industry, for example, it's not unusual for the best and brightest scientists to make their way to the executive level, where they are then held hostage to retirement laws. "These people are taken out of the epicenter, of where they can really make some contributions, and they are put on the side," Hilleman says, adding, "I think there should be a selection of people who are outstandingly productive and who have a niche to fill. There should be some sort of rescue operation for these individuals. In many ways, scientists can be compared to artists or musicians. You can still toot a horn when you're 90." In academia, the current mandatory retirement age for science and other faculty is 70. But this age ceiling is widely expected to be lifted by Congress as of Jan. 1, 1994, thus making it possible for professors to remain in the classroom and in their laboratories for as long as they choose. Within education circles, the anticipated uncapping of the 70-year age limit has prompted great controversy concerning the relative assets and liabilities of youth and seniority. Given one estimate suggesting that nearly one third of all current faculty will retire by the turn of the century, research is also focusing on ways to retain older professors while maintaining current standards of education and research. One of these studies was recently conducted by Sharon P. Smith, an economist and associate director of the Princeton University-based Project on Faculty Retirement, jointly sponsored by the American Association of Universities and the American Association of University Professors. After studying the age and teaching performance of faculty at a major research institution, Smith concludes that there is a significant relationship between teaching effectiveness and age. This relationship, however, varies structurally by discipline, and science professors, it seems, do not fare well with age. The problem area is in the physical and biological sciences, in which there is a slight decline in teaching effectiveness with age, Smith reports. This factor is compounded with adverse self-selection, so that the most effective science teachers seem to choose to retire early. The result is that the remaining pool of science professors is of even lower average effectiveness. One reason science and other professors may choose to hang on beyond their peak of productivity is that "most universities are pretty harsh on retirees," says Nobelist Joshua Lederberg, the 64-year-old president of Rockefeller University, who will leave that post in June to resume a research career as a tenured professor with the institution. "Extremely distinguished individuals may get a pittance for continued scholarship or research," he says. "But essentially, there are no real opportunities for most 70-year-old scientists who are able to - and want to - continue working." Calvin Lang, a 64-year old nutritional biochemist who has worked in the field of aging for the past 30 years and who is now a professor of biochemistry at the University of Louisville, agrees. "Most universities have not been very creative in utilizing their senior scientists. In fact, they've been lousy," Lang says. "The attitude has been, `We'll feed them and water them,' but what they really need is a lab. Emeritus professors may get office space, use of a Xerox machine, limited secretarial help, maybe a parking space, but once a scientist can't support a lab with his own research funds, they take the lab away." The Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1986 eliminated compulsory retirement for most employees in the U.S. workforce. At that time, however, exemptions to the law were created for certain groups of workers, including corporate executives and tenured faculty at colleges and universities. As the law stands now, tenured faculty must retire by age 70. This exemption, however, is widely expected to be lifted as of Jan. 1, 1994, making it possible for professors to stay in their classrooms and laboratories as long as they wish. Already, several universities have voluntarily lifted the upper-age limit on tenured faculty. In business and industry, corporate executives subject to the age limit of 65 must meet two key criteria: First, they must have policy-making authority within their organizations. Secondly, they must have reached a point in their working career whereby they will be assured of receiving pension compensation of no less than $44,000 per year. Washington University professor of law who specializes in labor and employment issues. Other categories of workers who remain subject to compulsory retirement are police and firefighters. --J.K. According to 1987 data from the National Science Foundation, senior researchers are clearly in the minority of scientists who are awarded NSF grants. While the NSF statistics do not give the age of researchers who are awarded grants, they do indicate the year in which they received their last degree, usually a Ph.D., according to James Mc-Cullough, director of NSF's program evaluation staff. In 1987, for example, 13.1% of all awardees had received their last degree prior to 1959. Those receiving their degrees between 1970 and 1979 made up 40% of researchers awarded NSF funds. For many scientists, this can mean two decades with no support for being productive. "This is a serious problem," says NIA's Riley. But McCullough says one cannot assume from these data that senior applicants are consistently declined by NSF. Rather, he says, "what it comes down to is whether an applicant's peers believe him to be on the cutting edge." All too often, however, it is assumed that anyone over a certain age cannot possibly be on the cutting edge, says Nobelist Linus Pauling, a chemist who has outlived his life expectancy at birth by 40 years. At age 88, Pauling has retired himself as director of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in Palo Alto, Calif. He does continue research on the nature of metal alloys, but over the past few years he has been declined an NSF grant for his work four consecutive times. Last year, Pauling did receive NSF's Vannevar Bush Award, which is conferred periodically on a senior scientist who has made outstanding contributions in his field. The award, which is honorary and carries no financial stipend, is designed to encourage individuals to seek the highest levels of achievement in science, engineering, and service to humanity. It is also designed, according to NSF, to complement the foundation's Alan T. Waterman Award to a promising young scientist, an award that, by comparison, carries a grant of up to $500,000 over a three-year period. "I was rather amused that at exactly the same time I was receiving the Vannevar Bush Award, I was being turned down again for a research grant," Pauling says. "In giving me the award, the chairman of the NSF board reviewed all of the contributions I made to science in the past, and didn't say anything about what I was doing at the present. Meanwhile, I work just as many hours as I ever did, and I've published more papers per year in the last 10 to 15 years than when I was younger." Julia King is a freelance science writer based in Ridley Park, Pa. Part I of a two-part series, to be continued in the Feb. 5, 1990, issue of The Scientist. In Part II, The Scientist examines opportunities for senior scientists. Also, eminent researchers, including Pauling and 83-year-old computer scientist Admiral Grace Hopper, offer suggestions on how older researchers can remain productive.

Senior Scientists Face Funding Hurdles, Mandatory Retirement

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of