
Fleeting Youth, Fading Creativity in Science - alexjmann
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071573334216604.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter
======
drewsing
Wow. I agree.

I'm a 21 year old that goes to your regular, univy league college, the
University of San Francisco. I would say drive, and the willingness to dream
(and take risks) is almost dead among your average Americans who HAVE the
skill and talent to develop science and technology.

I've had discussions with my co-Founder about this (we're applying for YC this
summer). We believe the American dream has morphed. Everyone is scared in our
generation. We're scared of not getting jobs, of not living the cushy lives we
thought would be handed to us as kids.

Now, our generation is more than happy to settle for a shitty internship, to
settle for ok, to settle for "getting by". It's because we're scared. Scared
of what our future holds for us (which no one really knows haha).

Of course, there are exceptions, but I'm speaking about the high school and
college segment as a whole. These are my opinions from what I see in talented
people I know.

~~~
jacoblyles
No offense, but your observation is probably less true at the better schools.
The middle of the bell curve has never been exceptionally motivated.

------
ojbyrne
So poetry is mentioned in the article quite prominently, and I think I know a
little bit about it, so I'd just like to point out a few confounding factors.

1\. Many great poets (Keats, Shelley, Byron, Sylvia Plath, etc) died at a
young age. Not only did that limit their output at a later age, the resulting
aura around death at young ages contributed to their reputation.

2\. Other great writers (Shakespeare, Joyce) wrote poetry when they were
young, and moved to writing longer works in slightly different forms as they
got older. Their later works are even more acclaimed, and are actually
"poetic" if not exactly poetry.

There are many, many poets who are critically acclaimed and wrote their best
work much later in life. I think point (1) must have dominated this person's
research, and makes me suspect his overall point.

I suspect similar factors come into play in science - for example, great
scientists most likely end up in administrative positions where they
supervisie and mentor younger scientists who write the papers.

------
blackguardx
For every scientist who innovated while young, there is another whose major
contribution came later in life.

Looking at it a different way, one could argue that scientists who are known
primarily for work done at a young age just rested on their laurels after this
early success.

------
nazgulnarsil
sure, if we're talking about "science" exclusively as that which is funded
directly by government. this field has slowly morphed into revolving around
the grant approval process rather than interesting research. it's the old
patron-artist relationship. you're going to get art that the patron likes.

------
ksraines
In my view, the article is backwards.

Let me ask a very honest question: what does one actually have to gain,
personally, from making a fundamental contribution to physics? Consider that
it takes at least a decade for prizes to be distributed. So at best, you are
looking at a cushy professorship at a nice University for your efforts, and
maybe - if you are lucky - in your forties someone will send you a plaque and
a modest check for your efforts.

Wouldn't any rational young man prefer something a little more tangible for a
decade of his youth? Especially given the accessibility of such rewards in
other fields?

Hence the fundamental issue addressed in the article is not actually addressed
at all: the young and brilliant are simply not interested - and for good
reason (IMHO).

Let me add one more thing. Compared to a century ago, the young physicist has
much more to learn before he even has the knowledge to make fundamental
contributions, hence the prospects starting out are much more daunting.

------
marshallp
A lot of science nowadays is data collection and crunching. The reductionist
viewpoint of finding "laws" is over, The complexity of biology, which is the
majority of science today, is too great for humans to even attempt to fathom.

In this age of computation government funding with grants, with all the
inefficiencies and politics, is a waste of money and a drain on the talents of
many of the brightest individuals in society.

The current model should be ditched and replaced by the netflix prize or darpa
grand challenge model. Only then will real progress be made.

