New research from the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Chicago shows that as scientists age, they tend to generate fewer disruptive new ideas and more often build on existing ones. The findings were released on May 12 and highlight a “nostalgia effect” in scientific advancement that can shape entire fields and even nations.
The study matters because it suggests that the age distribution among researchers affects how science progresses. As older scientists become gatekeepers, their preferences for established knowledge may slow the adoption of groundbreaking concepts.
Lingfei Wu, an assistant professor in Pitt’s School of Computing and Information and a senior author of the study, said, “There’s a linkage between memory and innovation — how you tie yourself to the past leads to how you position yourself in the current day. It’s not just about science, it’s about humanity.” Wu added, “You stick to a certain kind of idea or taste, and as time goes by you keep sticking to that. We see this happen again and again.”
The team analyzed data from 12.5 million scientists by tracking citation patterns throughout their careers. They found that as researchers age, their work shifts toward novelty—recombining old ideas—rather than disruptiveness—introducing entirely new concepts. For each year a researcher ages, the average paper they cite also grows older by about one month. The study was published May 7 in Science.
Wu said this trend is passed down through academic hierarchies: “Aging people are not less creative, they are just creative differently,” he said. He noted that older researchers influence younger colleagues through lab leadership roles or peer review processes by encouraging citations of older studies.
The authors argue these effects have grown with changes in retirement policies leading to an aging core among U.S. researchers; meanwhile countries with younger research communities like China or India produce more disruptive work. Wu concluded: “You need to welcome global young talent… They don’t have certain kinds of knowledge… but this is their advantage.” He suggested fostering intergenerational collaborations could help maintain both continuity and renewal within science.
