Scientists over the age of 40 make most of the major breakthroughs
researchnews.osu.edu
researchnews.osu.edu
For example, take George Zweig who discovered quarks before Murray Gell-Mann did, however Gell-Mann got the credit because Zweig was an undergraduate and Gell-Mann was a well known name in the physics community.
Gell-Mann ended up getting the Nobel in 1969, and Zweig ended up leaving physics and going over to the neurobiology camp and made significant contributions to wavelets.
That's depressing.
Even more depressing.
Is stealing-credit a social practice which varied over the same period as the aging? That is, were scientists completely honest or something in the late 1880s/1890s such that the first Nobel year in the study (1901) was awarded honestly? And did academic dishonesty steadily increase until it's so rampant that apparently a ton of young academics in the 1990s and 2000s have been screwed out of the Nobels by their seniors?
(Only some Nobels were stolen, you say? But then, are these few thefts enough to shift the average age all the way up to 48? Do these few thefts change matters even a little? If not, then why are you quibbling and generalizing from a single anecdote?)
So back in the early 1900s, you could get a PhD and be an independent scientist at 24-25. By the time you hit your 30s, you have had several years to pursue your own research.
Flash forward to the present and you've got PhDs that are 5-6 years in length followed by numerous post-doc positions before you can ever be considered for a faculty position where you can pursue your own research. Most PhD level scientists are close to 35 by the time the process finishes.
I think the people that say "those over 40 take credit for discoveries" are correct too. You could do amazing work as a post-doc and there is no way in hell you'll ever get more than second author.
"Scientists over the age of 40 take credit for most of the major breakthroughs"