Project #1: Late-Career Research Productivity and the Timing of Retirement Scientific innovation is playing an increasingly important economic role in the US, and biomedical science in particular generates large health benefits. However, the US scientific workforce is aging rapidly, making it increasingly important to understand how innovative output varies by age, particularly as scientists approach retirement. Existing work has generally focused on the early career. This project will expand our understanding of the age-creativity relationship by studying how innovative output changes during the late career and how the approach of retirement affects innovation. We will begin by (i) documenting trends in innovation (as measured by scientific publications, patents, and citations) in the late career and (ii) estimating how the aging of our innovative workforce will affect the rate of innovation. We will go on to estimate (iii) how the expected age of retirement affects innovation and (iv) how changes in retirement policies will affect the production of innovation. We will use our estimates to simulate how possible changes in retirement policies (such as the movement from Defined Benefit to Defined Contribution pension plans) will affect when researchers retire and the production of innovation. Researchers whose productivity is declining may have an incentive to retire early, so to address the possibility of reverse causation we will use variation in retirement age arising from features of retirement programs such as sharp discontinuities at particular ages or number of years of service and differences in the features of retirement programs across universities) as well as abrupt changes in government funding for scientific research (e.g. stimulus spending).
The US scientific workforce is aging at the very time when the demand for health services is surging with the aging of the baby-boom cohort. This project will inform policy with research-backed predictions for how changes in retirement programs and government science spending will affect the production of biomedical research in the future.
|Carpenter, Janet S; Laine, Tei; Harrison, Blake et al. (2017) Topical, geospatial, and temporal diffusion of the 2015 North American Menopause Society position statement on nonhormonal management of vasomotor symptoms. Menopause 24:1154-1159|
|Peng, Yufang; Bonifield, Gary; Smalheiser, Neil R (2017) Gaps within the Biomedical Literature: Initial Characterization and Assessment of Strategies for Discovery. Front Res Metr Anal 2:|
|Packalen, Mikko; Bhattacharya, Jay (2017) Neophilia Ranking of Scientific Journals. Scientometrics 110:43-64|
|Blau, David M; Weinberg, Bruce A (2017) Why the US science and engineering workforce is aging rapidly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:3879-3884|
|Azoulay, Pierre; Ganguli, Ina; Zivin, Joshua Graff (2017) The mobility of elite life scientists: Professional and personal determinants Res Policy 46:573-590|
|Smalheiser, Neil R; Bonifield, Gary (2016) Two Similarity Metrics for Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): An Aid to Biomedical Text Mining and Author Name Disambiguation. J Biomed Discov Collab 7:e1|
|Knepper, Richard; Börner, Katy (2016) Comparing the Consumption of CPU Hours with Scientific Output for the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE). PLoS One 11:e0157628|
|Prosperi, Mattia; Buchan, Iain; Fanti, Iuri et al. (2016) Kin of coauthorship in five decades of health science literature. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113:8957-62|
|Buffington, Catherine; Harris, Benjamin Cerf; Jones, Christina et al. (2016) STEM Training and Early Career Outcomes of Female and Male Graduate Students: Evidence from UMETRICS Data linked to the 2010 Census. Am Econ Rev 106:333-338|
|Mishra, Shubhanshu; Torvik, Vetle I (2016) Quantifying Conceptual Novelty in the Biomedical Literature. Dlib Mag 22:|
Showing the most recent 10 out of 21 publications