| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
EDITORIAL |
As a member of the baby boom generation, I am still looking forward to new challenges and new science but largely avoiding the thought of retirement. As editor of the journal, I have the particular pleasure of reading the entire issue of the journal during proofing. The new research from across the world is making a difference. However, I look around and see colleagues who are considering retirement or, in a recent situation, pass away while they are still contributing so much. Industry is increasingly looking to succession planning so that retirement and deaths are less disruptive. I question whether universities, colleges, government laboratories, and even all companies are giving sufficient thought to the issue of succession.
The baby boom generation (1946–1964) was the post-World War II generation. This was followed by first Generation X (1965–1980) and then Generation Y or the Millennium Generation (1981–1995). Some think of each generation as having a defining historical event. The baby boomers came of age around the time of Woodstock. The Generation Xers grew up with the fall of the Berlin Wall and worldwide changes in geopolitics. For Generation Y, perhaps the millennium is a defining moment in time.
Not only did the baby boomers represent a marked demographic event with large numbers of children born in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe between 1946 and 1964, but there were also huge increases in both the number and percentage of the population going to college. The natural corollary to this was a large increase in the size of universities and colleges and a concomitant increase in the number of faculty. These faculty were recruited beginning in the 1970s and are projected to be retiring (or leaving their posts for other reasons) in the next five to ten years.
It is natural to consider replacing people as they leave with younger versions of the same or to go in a different direction. A strong case should be made, instead, for thoughtful strategic planning at the department and college levels with substantive input from industry. This should include a visioning of the new faculty needed and a comprehensive recruiting plan. I would argue that an analogous exercise needs to be performed at the regional and national levels to ensure that critical disciplines are part of the regional and national scientific infrastructure. Both faculty and administrators need to come together with industry and other interested parties to consider needs that cut across research, academic affairs, and extension/outreach. Too often there is too much separation between discussions of research, academic affairs, and extension/outreach.
Coupled to these discussions should be emphasis on undergraduate and graduate education to provide a "pipeline" of educated people who will be the future faculty members, scientists for government laboratories and regulatory agencies, and industry management and leadership. With the tremendous growth of the Asian economies, the United States and probably other countries cannot rely on importing talent. A further point is the decline in the number of students coming from farm backgrounds. To address the pipeline, a number of approaches might be considered:
There is a very strong case that the United States Department of Agriculture together with other agencies should take the lead to beginning a national conversation on the critical issue of succession.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. L. Taylor Jr. The future of poultry science research: Things I think I think Poult. Sci., June 1, 2009; 88(6): 1334 - 1338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
