Age for Nobel-Winning Work Rises

A survey of science Nobels finds that the age at which winners do their work has been going up over the last century. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[Audio of Albert Einstein]

Einstein, Newton and many other legendary scientists did groundbreaking work in their 20s. But if your hair has gone gray and no Nobel seems likely, don’t fret just yet. Because the age at which Nobel-winning work gets done has been going up. So says a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Benjamin F. Jones and Bruce A. Weinberg, "Age dynamics in scientific creativity"]

Researchers analyzed 525 science Nobel Prize–winners from 1901 to 2008. In the small sample before 1905, about two-thirds of Nobel winners did their major work before age 40. But by 2000 most laureates did their cited work after age 40.

The entire field of quantum mechanics was predominantly a young man’s game—which meant that as late as 1934, more than three-quarters of physics prizes were for work done by people under 40. But the more mature researchers have steadily increased their catch since then.

The study authors note that a shift from theoretical to experimental work can account for some of the age change. It also takes longer to educate and train new contributors to now-mature fields. So keep plugging. Unlike the youthful Archimedes, your “eureka” moment may come in a bathtub with safety bars.

—Cynthia Graber


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe