Why is it that all the big scientific discoveries are made by young scientists? Do the older scientists just lose their mental capacity? Do they lose the ability to look at things in a fresh light?

Old Scientists never die, they just devolve.

Why is it that all the big scientific discoveries are made by young scientists? Do the older scientists just lose their mental capacity? Do they lose the ability to look at things in a fresh light?

because they keep ejaculating

Could you please define old? I know plenty of researchers, clinicians, etc. in their 40's-60's that contribute quite a bit to scientific discoveries.

Why is it that all the big scientific discoveries are made by young scientists? Do the older scientists just lose their mental capacity? Do they lose the ability to look at things in a fresh light?

You first need to show the validity of that statement. I, for one, doubt it's accuracy. And also define "older."

Why is it that all the big scientific discoveries are made by young scientists? Do the older scientists just lose their mental capacity? Do they lose the ability to look at things in a fresh light?

Contrary to the sterotypical image of a man haired old guy with bottle bottomed glasses, the majority of research is by post doctoral scientists around 30 years of age.

Not all are in it for the long run, and many I have known have headed for the private sector for better remuneration once they have a healthy set of publications behind them. Money is academic posts isn't great, I have worked for a couple of Universities, and soon improved my lot once I left.

But there is a fresh wave of graduates researching PHDs and Post docs conductng research each year, so the age range is biased towards this band. So it's quite simple, bleed off of the older and a constant resupply of the young.

Also, someone has to teach, many of the post docs take teaching roles and their research time takes a dent. In fact, there weren't that many pure research roles at my last place of employ, most were expected to teach even if just one lecture a week.

Becuase they lose their creativity, and begin thinking more as in a straight line.

Imagination is more important than intelligence according to Einstein.

What kind of science are you basing your statement? I work in cancer research which is made up of many different sciences and cores from basic sciences to clinical sciences.

As you get older your frontal lobe of your brain becomes more devoloped. At age 26 your brain is fully developed. The frontal Lobe is great for Math and Statistics but what it gains it loses in creativity.

Examples, Issac Newton, Einstein . . .

Well these guys are pretty smart and older:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2005/

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2005/

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/

Some pretty interesting stuff...

I can post more later

I mean "big" discoveries.

I suppose some of those are big discoveries to certain people. Here is one of my favorite researchers, her work has been a "big" discovery in regards to breast cancer.

http://www.umgcc.org/news/brodie_home.htm

Did they make a PBS special about her? Come on, you know - "BIG" discoveries.

Did they make a PBS special about her? Come on, you know - "BIG" discoveries.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. Show proof of your assertion, define "old" and while you're at it, define "big" discovery.

Until you satisfy those, this will go nowhere.

People with breast cancer and their families think this is a "big" discovery.

Maybe he means the Big 100

http://science.discovery.com/convergence/100discoveries/big100/big100.html

"Big" means they make a PBS special about it. "Old" means beyond "young".

"Big" means they make a PBS special about it. "Old" means beyond "young".

lol

Here you go:

Old scientist:

http://www.childrenshospital.org/cfapps/research/data_admin/Site105/mainpageS105P0.html

His PBS special:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/cancer/

Judah Folkman may be old and have his own PBS Special, but he was young when he came up with his theories.

He is still publishing research...

So, what? Being a useful old scientist is not the question.

I would think that most researchers start to hypothesize when they are young and are able to carry them out once they have the credentialing, resources, and funding to be able to fully complete them. He was 38 when he formed the hypothesis regarding tumor growth and angiogenesis dependence.

"Big" means they make a PBS special about it. "Old" means beyond "young".

Now THAT really defined it - NOT! :bugeye:

The old scientists I know get funding for start-ups to implement technology based on their discoveries. They also mentor young scientists.

When you're young you have many ideas, but when you're older, you're working on them.

Some post here.;)

Yeah, but why work on old out-dated ideas? Wouldn't it be better to work on new fresh ones?