03.2019 | THE SCIENTIST 57CAREERS© ISTOCK.COM, NIKADA
H
ad he been at almost any other
institution in the UK, Hagan
Bayley could have studied mem-
brane proteins for as long as he wanted.
But at the University of Oxford, the
chemical biologist was asked to retire
from his professorship of 16 years this
coming September, and to give up his
lab—along with the 20 graduate stu-
dents and postdocs who work there—at
what he considers the relatively young
age of 68.
Fortunately for Bayley, he is able to
stay three additional years, but that’s only
because he applied to university admin-
istrators for an extension—a process he
says dragged on for seven years, after he
was denied twice and had to go through
an arduous appeals process.
It’s a challenge that several Oxford
academics have taken on since the uni-
versity introduced a so-called “employer
justified retirement age” in 2011, which
effectively forces staff to leave their posi-
tions at a fixed age—originally 67 years
old, but recently raised to 68. In August
2018, an Oxford literature professor went
as far as suing the university for lost earn-
ings, claiming age discrimination after
being asked to retire at 67 in 2016. “ Yo u
have to be very tenacious, because you
can easily give up,” says Bayley.
The UK abolished its nationwide
retirement age in 2011, 25 years after
the US made the same move. But insti-
tutions can implement their own retire-
ment rules if they can make a legiti-
mate business argument. Oxford, along
with the Universities of Cambridge
and St. Andrews, decided to exercise
that option in recent years. The rea-
son, according to Oxford’s policy: to
promote “inter-generational fairness,”
equality, and diversity.Mandatory retirement is just one
approach that university administrators
on both sides of the Atlantic are consider-
ing in order to curb what many view as a
troubling trend in academic research, and
particularly in the sciences—that senior
researchers are retiring later and later,
while siphoning away limited resources
such as faculty positions and funding from
younger researchers.
For Bayley, however, dismissing expe-
rienced researchers at the height of their
careers isn’t just unfair—it would do more
harm than good for science. “I don’t think
that firing faculty members at 68 is going
to give you the best science,” he says. “And
it’s also not good for young people,” aslab members will have to find alternative
posts after their PI leaves. “You’re not fir-
ing one person, you’re firing an entire
research group.”A senior cohort
Since the US abolished mandatory
retirement in 1986, followed by Austra-
lia in 2004, and later the UK, the num-
bers of professors pushing 70 in those
countries have soared. In the US, the
mean age of life scientists employed in
academic faculties has climbed fromAN OLD INSTITUTION: The University of
Oxford is one of several UK universities that
have introduced mandatory retirement ages
for faculty.The Aging Workforce
Researchers, institutions, and funding agencies are struggling to come up with ways to make
academic science sustainable as more people opt to stay in their positions longer.BY KATARINA ZIMMER