SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Is 65 too old to stay at the helm of a major research center?
[...] Bréchot, who previously led INSERM, the French biomedical research agency, aspires to a second term, but he will turn 65 in July 2017. Under the governing statutes of the foundation that runs the Paris center, that disqualifies him for the renewal, Pasteur's 21-strong board of directors has concluded. Angered by the board's refusal to change the rules, Pasteur's General Meeting, a parliament-style governing body, dissolved the board in June. Now, Bréchot's future is in limbo.
[...] The board, which includes six Pasteur scientists, would not budge. Changing Article 12 would be a lengthy affair that requires government involvement and could lead to a complete review of the foundation's statutes to align them with those of other French foundations, says board chair Rose-Marie Van Lerberghe. That could damage Pasteur, she adds: For example, Bréchot earns a sizable salary but typical foundation statutes require an unpaid president, which would make it difficult to recruit a top candidate.
How old is too old for this job and others?
Would making the position unpaid like other foundation actually make it "difficult to recruit a top candidate"?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/dispute-over-presidents-age-tears-pasteur-institute-apart
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:12PM
No, it would make it difficult to recruit a top-earning candidate. If somebody won't be your top executive without a ridiculous salary, they are probably more interested in the ridiculous salary than your organization. Keep in mind that all of the "top candidates" are already wealthy from the successful ventures that make them "top candidates" to begin with.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:07PM
The question wasn't about a ridiculous salary.
It was about NO salary at all.
I have no idea of the job requirements, or eve if it is a figurehead or a full time job.
But reading the rest of the TFA suggests there is a pre-existing internal power struggle going on, which TFS never mentions. This Bréchot guy is in the midst of imposing a fairly sweeping reform.
The issue is clearly not just age related, although reading the TFS might lead you to believe that.
If limited to under 65, that is still within prime earning years of a top scientist.
There is no expectation that top scientists in research are all that wealthy. We aren't talking about General Motors or Air Bus here. Its a health research oriented company. Your allegations of wealth aren't warranted, and non germane.
If this is a full time job, leaving no time for outside earnings, I could see that an age limit would make the job less desirable for those still active in any field of research, and being forced to surrender any income for the 4 year term would make it less attractive.
On the other hand if all it is a monthly/quarterly board meetings with travel perks and an expense account you could still head your own laboratory, or teaching position, and it would be a nice post-retirement honorary position. Except for that 65 yearn limit.
65 is the new 45. Seems a waste of a goog brain. Pay them something, or let them serve in retirement. Doing neither seems like they want a rubber-stamp figurehead.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:35PM
If this is a full time job, leaving no time for outside earnings, I could see that an age limit would make the job less desirable for those still active in any field of research, and being forced to surrender any income for the 4 year term would make it less attractive.
On the other hand if all it is a monthly/quarterly board meetings with travel perks and an expense account you could still head your own laboratory, or teaching position, and it would be a nice post-retirement honorary position. Except for that 65 yearn limit.
Thanks for pointing out some of the options; I was wondering how a position like that would fund itself. Sounded to me like they were setting themselves up perfectly for corruption - no salary paid to someone in a position to effect policy almost sounds like they're encouraged to take bribes to support themselves.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:15PM
To be fair, I was just responding to the summary. I mean, who actually reads the linked articles around here anyway?
I still think though that earning no salary wouldn't drop the potential quality of candidates. It would probably make it hard to find any candidates, but that wasn't the implication. And I stand by my statement that the top of the field - no matter what the field is - ought to be wealthy enough to take no salary.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Saturday August 06 2016, @09:13PM
To be fair, the summary said...