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: 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...