In 2007, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a policy to reverse an alarming decline in awards to new investigators (that is, applicants having received no prior independent funding via a major mechanism; http://grants.nih.gov/grants/new_investigators/). Although this policy has improved the number and percentage of awards for new investigators (from 23.9% in 2008 to 31.8% in 2010), the average age at which a new investigator (with a PhD) receives his or her first R01 award remains 42 (http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/13/age-distribution-of-nih-principal-investigators-and-medical-school-faculty/). Newer disciplines such as chemical biology that are largely populated by young scientists are disproportionately negatively affected by this funding environment.

Many factors contribute to the increasing age of new investigators. Scientific research grows ever more complex, and innovative work often requires an interdisciplinary approach, which often prolongs training for students and postdocs. The fact that a growing percentage of established investigators remain active in research beyond the traditional retirement age (Nature 483, 233–235, 2012) translates into fewer opportunities for young scientists. This trend and other institutional barriers that increase the age of new faculty also decrease the pool of young scientists who are even eligible to apply for funding. The emphasis placed on experience and preliminary results by grant review panels, which generally do not contain young investigators, are inherent disadvantages that can also prolong the time it takes for young investigators to obtain their first grants.

Regardless of the origin of these trends, the current state of funding is detrimental to the present and future of scientific research. Consider that from 1980 to 2010, the 96 winners of the Nobel Prize were on average 41 years old when they performed their award-winning research (PLoS One 6, e29738, 2011), and, in general, most investigators do their most influential work mid-career (∼36–45 years old; Scientometrics 61, 1117–1128, 2004). We suggest that the time for small adjustments in research funding philosophy or strategy to promote the careers of young scientists has passed. Rather, it is time for dramatic action; major funding bodies should consider allocating funds for applicants at particular stages of their career, and applicant pools should be considered individually by career stage. The NIH could also consider alternative models championed by agencies such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (http://www.hhmi.org/research/index.html) or the European Research Council (http://erc.europa.eu/about-erc/facts-and-figures) by investing in people as opposed to projects and providing long-term support so investigators can tackle more challenging problems. Notably, both of these agencies have funding mechanisms targeting young investigators who are considered against a pool of their peers.

Funding agencies such as the NIH have more power to improve the plight of young investigators than any academic center, university president or established investigator. Accordingly, if the NIH were to adopt and enforce policies and funding initiatives that incentivized institutions to hire young scientists, barriers outside of the direct purview of the NIH could disappear. Research institutions will make the necessary changes to comply with such policies to maintain their funding streams. In the absence of this type of disruptive innovation, the future of young disciplines such as chemical biology and, more broadly, of interdisciplinary science is in jeopardy.