1. See, for the classic discussion, D. J. de SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, New York: Columbia University Press, 1962.
2. These figures are based on a census of American astronomers taken in the following manner. Scientists were included if (a) they listed astronomy, astrophysics or a closely related field as their principle discipline of research in the 1974 edition ofAmerican Men and Women of Science; or (b) they were listed as members of the American Astronomical Society in its 1975 membership directory. In addition, the included scientist must have at least one publication listed in theAstronomischer Jahresbericht between 1950 and 1975. This procedure introduces one bias that is of relevance for the following analysis: the number of scientists from very recent cohorts (say, 1974 or 75) will be somewhat underestimated since they have had only one or two years in which to produce their first publication.
3. S. COLE, Age and Scientific Performance,American Journal of Sociology, 84 (1979) 968.
4. In S. COLE'S words, “It is unlikely that an increase in the mean age of our scientists will in and of itself bring about a meaningful decline in our scientific capacity.” ibid, p. 977. For a comprehensive review of issues related to the age-structure of science, see Harriet ZUCKERMAN and R. K. MERTON, Age, Aging and Age Structure in Science, in MERTON,The Sociology of Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973, Chapter 22. Empirical research on age and productivity in science is summarized by Barbara F. RESKIN, Age and Scientific Productivity: A Critical Review, in M. S. McPHERSON (Ed.),The Demand for New Faculty in Science and Engineering, Commission on Human Resources, National Research Council, 1979.
5. This view of scientific development has been summarized by J. BEN-DAVID and Teresa SULLIVAN, Sociology of Science,Annual Review of Sociology, 1 (1975) 203–22, who conclude: “Thus the demography of the field is linked to its intellectual potential.”. (p. 214) The “model” is also found with incidental variation in: J. YELLIN, A Model for Research Problem Allocation Among Members of a Scientific Community,Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2 (1972) 1–36; Diana CRANE,Invisible Colleges, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1972; N. MULLINS, A Social Theory of Scientific Revolutions, in KNORR, STRASSER and ZILLIAN (Eds),Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1975. pp. 185–203; D. SULLIVAN et al., The State of a Science: Indicators in the Specialty of Weak Interactions,Social Studies of Science, 7 (1977) 167–200; and M. J. MULKAY, Three Models of Scientific Development,Sociological Review, n.s. 23 (1972) 509–26.