International chess masters, Olympic gold medallists and Nobel prize-winning scientists were rarely child prodigies, a review reveals. Likewise, early childhood successes and intense training programmes have rarely led to top achievement at a global level in the adult world.

The analysis – based on 19 studies involving nearly 35,000 high-performing people – shows that the vast majority of adults who lead worldwide rankings in their field of expertise grew up participating in a broad range of activities, only gradually developing their most proficient skill.

The findings contradict popular beliefs that achieving top international performance levels requires intensive, highly focused training during childhood, says at RPTU Kaiserslautern in Germany. “If we understand that most world-class performers were not that remarkable or exceptional in their early years, this implies that early exceptional performance is not a prerequisite for long-term, world-class performance.”

Much research has strongly linked the intensity of a child’s training programme in specific activities – like music and athletics – to . But studies in older world-class athletes have shown trends to the contrary. For example, 82 per cent of international-level junior athletes , and 72 per cent of international-level seniors didn’t previously achieve the junior international level.

The backgrounds of famous international experts also suggest the link between childhood and adult success isn’t as strong as it might appear. For instance, although composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, golfer Tiger Woods, chess player Gukesh Dommaraju and mathematician Terence Tao were all child prodigies, composer Ludwig van Beethoven, basketball player Michael Jordan, chess player Viswanathan Anand and scientist Charles Darwin were not.

The studies that Güllich and his colleagues reviewed included analyses of the life histories of Olympic athletes, Nobel laureates in the sciences, world top-10 chess players and the most renowned classical music composers, as well as international leaders in other fields.

Free newsletter

Sign up to Eight Weeks to a Healthier You

Sign up to newsletter

Across various specialisms, early high achievers and later world-class performers were largely different people. Indeed, only about 10 per cent of those who excelled as adults were top performers in their youth, and only about 10 per cent of top youth performers went on to excel as adults.

The team also compared their results with data from 66 studies on the training histories of young and “sub-elite” performers – those reaching high local levels or junior championships but not necessarily the best in the world as seniors. They noted that traits that distinguish high-achieving youths, like early specialisation, rapid progress and abundant discipline-specific practice are largely absent – or even reversed – among adult world-class performers.

The women building exciting careers in nuclear security

One of the world’s leading nuclear technology and security companies wants to highlight the equal opportunities and flexible work-life balance it offers to attract a new generation of recruits

That might be because children who gain a broader early experience in various activities end up developing more flexible learning skills, and finding the activities that fit them the best. “In essence, they find an optimal discipline match and they enhance their learning capital for future long-term learning,” says Güllich.

Plus, having a less intense training schedule during childhood and adolescence could potentially help prevent burnout or injuries that can compromise long-term careers. “There’s this increased risk of getting stuck in a discipline you cease to enjoy and have no alternative to change,” says Güllich.

The review addresses a long-standing research gap by clearly separating early success from long-term elite performance, says at Utah State University. He says there is still a tendency to encourage children to focus hard on learning and practising a particular skill. “It certainly does develop expertise and leads to quick gains,” he says. “But I don’t know that it’s ultimately productive for people over their lifespans.”

Working past the age of retirement may improve your life satisfaction

Having a full-time job in later life has been linked to improved emotional, financial and general life satisfaction - but the results vary a lot between men and women

For Feldon, who is also a children’s wrestling coach, the review has important implications for those who work with children to help them develop skills. “It’s not just helping foster very high levels of expertise, but doing so in a way that is healthy and productive, and which leads to the betterment of people in a broader sense, not just in a very narrow attainment of outcome.”

Programmes designed to identify and fast-track early stars might thus miss many future top performers, while favouring pathways that optimise short-term success rather than long-term excellence, Güllich adds. “Those elite training programmes, giftedness programmes, scholarship programmes, and so on, that typically focus on very young ages and on just one discipline? Well, as we now know from recent evidence, it’ll be more promising to encourage young people to do at least one, maybe two other disciplines over multiple years.”

The innovation of tomorrow will be driven by the new generation of young minds.  But what do young people really think about science?  What do they like about science, what do they dislike, and what would put them off a career in science or healthcare?

Help us find out.

We want you to answer if you are aged 16-21. If you have children aged 7 to 15 please would you fill out the survey with them. We will be publishing the results in a forthcoming issue of 91av.

The questionnaire takes up to 10 minutes to complete. The information you give will only be used in aggregate and your views will be completely confidential in accordance with the UK Market Research Society’s Code of Conduct.

You can complete the survey .

ALL-UK-001204 February 2021

DESPITE turbulent economic times, careers in science are holding their own. In 2019, salaries for scientists and engineers dropped in some areas of the UK. But by other measures STEM jobs seem to be blossoming, according to the 2020 STEM Market Survey, produced by 91av in association with STEM specialist recruiter SRG. Scientists report having long, fulfilling careers and nearly all science students say they intend to enter the industry themselves.

The survey, published this week, looks at the work scientists do and how they feel about it. It also gives insights into those all-important salary numbers and how to get the most out of the job market.

The survey reached nearly 3000 people working in a spectrum of roles in science, engineering and clinical settings. The overwhelming majority of these were in the UK, but a handful of other European nations were also surveyed. Half of the respondents were working as scientists in research, development and quality control, with another 14 per cent working as engineers and 11 per cent in academia. Of those in industry, the most well represented sectors were pharmaceuticals, biotech and chemicals manufacturing. More than three-quarters of respondents were currently in STEM careers with the rest being students, retirees, people on a career break or now working elsewhere.

The 2018 edition of the survey contained . There was an almost double-digit percentage increase in the average salary compared with the previous year. This year’s figures aren’t so healthy. Between 2018 and 2019, STEM salaries suffered a setback as the average dropped from £40,925 to £39,130. This is probably part of a general economic trend amid the disruption of Brexit. The UK’s Office of National Statistics reports that 36 per cent of full-time employees experienced a real-terms pay decrease or pay freeze in 2019. The UK government’s promise to increase domestic research funding to £18 billion by 2025 may, however, mean the trend is short-lived.

On the face of it, things look better elsewhere in Europe. The survey looked at STEM jobs in Ireland, Switzerland, Italy and Germany to get a flavour of the job market there and found that the average salaries increased by 8 per cent compared with 2018, rising to €51,644. But there is a caveat. The average salary in Switzerland is so high that it skews the calculation. In Germany and Italy the average salaries were €58,500 and €40,000 respectively, but in Switzerland it was €95,000. Leaving the latter out gives €46,629, which is almost equivalent to the UK average.

Regional divide

So moving to other parts of Europe won’t necessarily get you a bigger pay cheque then, but could moving within the UK do it? There was definitely a regional variation in salary across the country (see map, right), with the South East and London having the highest averages. Then again, these areas also have a higher cost of living. East Anglia wasn’t far behind the top two, but outside of England the picture was not quite as positive. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were among the lowest average salaries. The North East of England came bottom.

Bear in mind, however, that these regional differences don’t apply to every employment sector. For example, the average salary for those working in chemicals manufacturing in the Midlands is £29,615, far behind the North West, where it is £37,069, and well below the overall regional average. In the pharmaceutical and engineering industries, there is a bigger difference between the North West and South West than their close regional averages would suggest: for pharmaceutical jobs there is a difference of £4000, and in engineering it’s £6000. The spread of average salaries for engineering was particularly broad, going from £38,000 in the South West to £55,000 in Greater London.

There may be other strategies that could put a little more money in your pocket though. Switching to a large company with more than 1500 employees, for instance, could earn you 14 per cent more in the UK or up to 25 per cent more elsewhere in Europe.

“88%
Number of STEM students planning on getting a job in science”

On the other hand, loyalty also seems to pay. People who had been with their employers for nine years or more earned on average £15,000 more than those who had only stayed up to three years.

The gender pay gap remains a problem, with a 20 per cent difference in the average salaries of men and women in the UK. This number is far too high, but is at least moving slowly in the right direction, down from 22 per cent in 2018. The reduction could be in part due to the mandatory reporting that was introduced in 2017. Elsewhere in Europe, the gender pay gap was a little higher at 24 per cent and hasn’t shifted from 2018. Mandatory reporting is on the way in countries such as Portugal and France and this may affect the figure in future.

Broken down by age, 83 per cent of respondents in the 65+ category say they are satisfied with their jobs, and just 8 per cent described themselves as dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied. This appears to suggest that STEM careers are rewarding for decades.

In contrast, around 31 per cent of the 25 to 34 age group described themselves as “satisfied” with their careers. Nevertheless, about half of this age group responded that they are “not working or retired”, so it might be that they are struggling to find that crucial first job. Ultimately, it seems STEM jobs are fulfilling – if you can get your foot in the door in the first place.

Overall, 88 per cent of the students we surveyed plan on entering STEM careers: 76 per cent of the men and 93 per cent of women. So perhaps efforts to encourage more women into STEM careers are finally starting to pay off. Stay tuned for next year’s survey to see if that trend continues.

To browse thousands of jobs see

Excessively scathing, mean or critical comments received through peer review may have more of an effect on women and ethnic minority researchers. An anonymous survey of more than 1000 scientists found that these people were more likely to question their scientific aptitude after receiving such comments, whereas white men were more likely to say that they didn’t see unpleasant comments as reflective of their scientific ability.

Peer review involves scientists anonymously assessing the work of other researchers as part of the processes of publishing journal papers and choosing which research proposals to award funding.

Sometimes, peer review comments can be personally hurtful. To investigate how often this happens and the effect such comments may have, Nyssa Silbiger at California State University and Amber Stubler at Occidental College, also in California, surveyed 1106 researchers from 46 countries and 14 different science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines.

Silbiger and Stubler asked specifically about peer review comments that are “unprofessional”, which they defined as either lacking constructive criticism, directly targeting a scientist rather than their science or being “mean-spirited”.

Out of those who responded to the survey, 58 per cent said they had received such comments. Those reported included “what the authors have done is an insult to science” and “this paper is simply manure”.

Some reported comments that directly suggested a career change, such as “you should look closely at a career outside of science”.

Others reported comments that were overtly sexist, such as “the first author is a woman. She should be in the kitchen, not writing papers.” Another comment reportedly read: “Despite being a woman, [she] was trained by several leading men in the field and is thus likely adequately prepared to lead the proposed research.”

Different effects

The survey found that white men were just as likely as any other scientist to report receiving unprofessional peer review comments.

Silbiger and Stubler then asked respondents who had received such comments to rate how much these had made them question their own scientific aptitude, and the extent to which it had affected their later productivity.

Women were 2.3 times as likely as white men to say they fully doubted their scientific abilities after receiving unprofessional peer review comments.

Women of colour were the least likely to say that unprofessional comments had no impact on their career advancement.

Silbiger and Stubler told 91av they weren’t surprised by the results. “There are many barriers to equity for marginalised groups in STEM, and we ourselves have experienced unprofessional comments.”

Rachel Oliver of campaign group The Inclusion Group for Equity in Research in STEMM says: “Many female and BAME scientists suffer from imposter syndrome as a result of being minoritised, and unprofessional comments hence inevitably contribute to negative self-assessments.”

Leon Black at the University of Leeds, UK, says: “In my experience, most editors and editorial board members are frustrated, to say the least, by unprofessional reviews. In Advances in Cement Research, where I am editor, there is not a formal policy, but we do try to make sure that unprofessional comments are not passed on to authors.”

A spokesperson for the journal Nature says: “As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewers’ reports. Any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content.” However, the spokesperson added that on rare occasions, they may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments. They also asks reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offence.

The Royal Society, which publishes a number of journals, says that it edits peer review comments prior to sending them back to authors, for unprofessional language and anything that may be libellous.

A spokesperson for UK Research and Innovation, which awards research funding, says they “expect all peer review contributions to be professional, appropriate and unbiased. We constantly keep our guidelines under review to ensure that our processes remain fair and robust and that no group is disadvantaged.”

White researchers are nearly 59 per cent more likely to receive funding for their research than ethnic minority researchers, according to a summary of data about seven UK research councils. The summary also reveals that the average research grant awarded to white researchers is more than a £100,000 bigger than the average grant awarded to those from ethnic minority backgrounds.

covers 2014 to 2019 and was collated by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the governmental organisation that oversees a number of research funding councils in the UK.

It reveals that white principal investigators (those who lead their labs) are successful in their grant proposals 27 per cent of the time on average, whereas ethnic minority principal investigators are only successful 17 per cent of the time. The average research grant given to a white researcher was £670,000, whereas the average for an ethnic minority researcher was £564,000.

UKRI collated this data in response to a request from the MP Norman Lamb, then chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. The request followed pressure from campaign group The Inclusion Group for Equity in Research in STEMM (TIGERS).

More detailed data needed

Tanvir Hussain, at the University of Nottingham and a member of TIGERS, says that the summary doesn’t go into enough detail. By lumping the research councils together, he says, it isn’t possible to tell which are doing better or worse than the others. The summary also doesn’t look at the success rates of different ethnicities.

Izzy Jayasinghe, a lecturer in cardiovascular sciences at the University of Leeds, UK, says she isn’t surprised by the findings, and that they reflect her experiences as a tenured academic. Before she was awarded a UKRI leadership fellowship this year, she had nine consecutive fellowship applications and grant proposals rejected.

Hussain says he would like to see grant application processes overhauled. In particular, he suggests selection panels shouldn’t be able to see a researcher’s past record until after they have evaluated the merit of that researcher’s proposal, to help eliminate conscious and unconscious bias. He also says there needs to be more ethnic minority researchers on selection panels.

A UKRI spokesperson told 91av that the body will publish diversity analyses for each research council after December’s general election. The body is also exploring how it can provide even more detailed data in the future

UKRI welcomed the Science and Technology Committee’s plans to hold an inquiry into the impact of science funding policy on equality, diversity, inclusion and accessibility.

However, the committee has now been dissolved until after the election, and will comprise a different set of MPs when it is reconvened.