The age of innovation

Yet while Galenson’s research studies the relationship between age and the type of innovation, another approach is to ask whether the peak age has changed over time. Work by Benjamin Jones (Kellogg School of Management) analyses the age at which Nobel laureates made their prize-winning contribution.

Across physics, chemistry, medicine and economics, Jones finds that the age at which laureates made their greatest contribution has shifted upwards over time. In the early-20th century, the typical prize was given for work when the winner was aged in their late-30s, but these days it is typically given for work done in the 40s.

Looking carefully at lifecycles, Jones concludes this is due to the increasing educational burden that each generation of innovators imposes on their successors. While the great minds of the early-20th century became research-active at age 23, those of the late-20th century only became research-active at age 31.

As the knowledge frontier moves out, it takes longer for the next generation to attain it. Using patent data, Jones also shows that as science has become more complex, there are more collaborations and fewer “renaissance men” making contributions across different sub-fields. In the absence of a paradigm shift, the normal process of scientific accumulation steadily moves the knowledge frontier outwards.

While lifecycle economics has policy implications, it also naturally leads to introspection. I couldn’t resist asking 37-year-old Jones how studying age-creativity patterns has made him view his own research. He responded: “My studies suggest my current age is one of peak productivity - and soon there will be a decline - so I'd better get back to work!”