Science
Forgotten but not gone
Bernard Dixon
There's no more depressing spectacle than the compulsory retirement of someone who has retained to the full both professional skills and a zest for life but who has reached retiring age and is put out to grass. Enforced atrophy of any sort of talent is a sin, but there is something acutely discomforting about the sacking of a scientist whose brain cells contain a unique store of specialised information and which still perform feats of agility. Far too many elderly scientists are left to kick their heels for want of a working environment. A brilliant mind can quickly go to seed when a research worker loses the daily stimulus of contact and discussion with professional colleagues. In other cases the more serious loss is physical rather than psychological; many a retired scientist could make good use of basic laboratory facilities or a few hours of computer time each week.
Of course, there are the lucky ones. Some retired scientists pick up stimulating work as consultants and advisers. A few retired university professors arrange to retain a room and a few square yards of bench space in their old department (though the sight of the old man pottering around can prove an icritation to a young incumbent). Other exscientists settle down to write the books they have incubated over the years, and some manage to do part-time lecturing.
Many former boffins, however, are not so fortunate, and are not even given such opportunities. For them, retirement means a sudden switch from the intellectually stimulating world of science to a life of rose-growing, afternoon tea, and the daily shopping. Some are content with the change — and why not? Others find it heart-breaking. This makes no sort of sense, either for the people involved or for a country whose greatest natural resource is its brain-power. In sheer economic terms, the disappearance of any specialist's skills and accumulated knowledge must be a gigantic loss to the community.
One solution for dealing with the situation was put forward a few years ago by Dr Ralph D. Tanz, of the Western Reserve University, Ohio. He suggested that the United States should set up an Institute for Retired Scientists. The idea was that scientists could subscribe to the institute throughout their working careers, thus buying themselves working facilities for their retirement. Alternatively, if a coronary-prone individual doubted his chances or reaching his statutory retiring age and decided not to subscribe, he could buy his way in with one payment should he survive and wish to continue working. The institute would provide offices, secretarial and technical assistance, laboratory facilities and — perhaps most important of all — a Stimulating working environment.
Such a proposal does, of course, run counter to that oft-quoted argument that scientists these days exhaust their supply of useful knowledge and skills comParatively early in life. On such a view, research workers should Specialise early, enjoy ten to twenty years of creative effort, and then gradually move from the frontiers of knowledge into areas such as teaching and administration, which depend more on wisdom and experience than mental gymnastics. There are many objections to such a view, but above all it is over-rated. Scientific knowledge and ability does not become redundant over such a Short time-span, and in any case the increasing emphasis of science education is towards turning out 'trained minds' versatile and adaptable enough to turn from one scientific project to another. An Institute for Retired Scientists is an excellent idea, Which could well be imported and Put into action in Britain. I suspect that once such an institute got going and developed an organic life of its own, its members would soon be showing the youngsters a thing or two. Freed from all the chores of a conventional career the professor emeritus would no longer need to spend half his time bullying committees for money, and the former commercial research director could forget about cash flow — many a mind long since written off by the younger scientific generation would flower once again. Money would, of course, be a Problem. A lifetime of subscrip tion would scarcely pay for some of the vastly expensive equipment needed for research in high-ener gy physics, for example. Some research lines would probably have to be excluded, and the institute Would cereainly need an initial subsidy. On the other hand, it ,Would take on contract research and might well make money. It could prove a profitable investment for the Science Research Council.
Previous page
