-
Today actually is
a very special day for me,
-
because it is my birthday.
-
(Applause)
-
And so thanks for all of you
for joining the party.
-
(Laughter)
-
But every time you throw a party,
there's someone there to spoil it. Right?
-
(Laughter)
-
And I'm a physicist,
-
and this time I brought
another physicist along to do so.
-
His name is Albert Einstein, also Albert,
-
and he's the one who said that the person
-
who has not made his main contributions
to science by the age of 30
-
will never do so.
-
Now you don't need to check Wikipedia
-
that I'm being 30.
-
(Laughter)
-
So effectively what
he is telling me, and us,
-
is that when it comes to my science,
-
I'm a dead wood.
-
Well, luckily, I had my share
of luck within my career.
-
Around age 28, I became
very interested in networks,
-
and a few years later we managed
to kind of publish a few key papers
-
that reported the discovery
of scale-free networks
-
and really gave birth to a new discipline
that we call network science today.
-
And if you really care about it,
you can get a PhD now in network science
-
in Budapest, in Boston,
-
and you can study it all over the world.
-
A few years later,
-
when I moved to Harvard
first as a sabbatical,
-
I became interested
in another type of networks,
-
and that time the networks
within ourselves,
-
how the genes and the proteins
and the metabolites link to each other,
-
and how they connect to disease.
-
And that also, that interest led
to a major explosion within medicine,
-
including the Network Medicine
Division at Harvard
-
that has more than 300 researchers
who are using this perspective
-
to treat patients and develop new cures.
-
And a few years ago, I thought that I
would take this idea of networks
-
and expertise we had in networks
in a different area,
-
that is to understand success.
-
And why did we do that?
-
Well, we thought that to some degree,
-
our success is determined
by the networks we are part of,
-
that our networks can push us forward,
they can pull us back,
-
and I was curious if we could use
the knowledge in big data and expertise
-
that we developed on networks to really
quantify how these things happen.
-
This is a result from that.
-
What you see here is a network
of galleries in museums
-
that connect to each other,
-
and through this map
that we mapped out last year,
-
we are able to predict very accurately
-
the success of an artist
-
if you give me the first five exhibits
that he or she had in her career.
-
Well, as we thought about success,
-
we realized that success
is not only about networks.
-
There are so many
other dimensions to that.
-
And, you know, one of the things
we need for success obviously
-
is performance.
-
So let's define what's the difference
between performance and success.
-
Well, performance is what you do,
-
how fast you run,
what kind of paintings you paint,
-
what kind of papers you publish.
-
However, in our working definition,
-
success is about what does the community
notices from what you did,
-
from your performance,
-
how does it acknowledge it,
and how does it reward you for it?
-
In other terms,
-
your performance is about you,
but your success is about all of us.
-
And this was a very
important shift for us,
-
because in the moment we defined success
as being a collective measure
-
that the community provides to us,
-
it became measurable,
-
because if it's in the community,
there are multiple data points about that.
-
So now we believe,
and we go to school, we exercise,
-
we practice because we believe
that performance leads to success.
-
But the way we actually
started to explore,
-
we realized that performance and success
are very, very different animals
-
when it comes to
the mathematics of the problem.
-
And let me illustrate that.
-
So what you see here is
the fastest man on Earth, Usain Bolt.
-
And of course, he wins most of
the competitions that he enters.
-
And we know he's the fastest on Earth
because we have a chronometer
-
to measure his speed.
-
Well, what is interesting about him
is that when he wins,
-
he doesn't do so by really significantly
outrunning his competition.
-
He's running at most a percent faster
than the one who loses the race.
-
And not only does he run only
one percent faster than the second one,
-
but he doesn't run
10 times faster than I do,
-
and I'm not a good runner,
trust me on that.
-
(Laughter)
-
And every time we are able
to measure performance,
-
we notice something very interesting.
-
That is, performance is bounded.
-
What it means is that there are
no huge variations in human performance.
-
It varies only in a narrow range,
-
and we do need the chronometer
to measure the differences.
-
This is not to say that we cannot
see the good from the best ones,
-
but the best ones
are very hard to distinguish,
-
and the problem with that
is that most of us work in areas
-
where we do not have a chronometer
to gauge our performance.
-
Alright, performance is bounded,
-
there are no huge differences between us
when it comes to our performance.
-
How about success?
-
Well, let's switch to
a different topic like books, right?
-
One measure of success for writers
is how many people read your work?
-
And so when my previous book
came out in 2009,
-
I was in Europe talking with my editor,
and I was interested,
-
who is the competition?
-
And I had some fabulous one.
-
That week (Laughter)
-
Dan Brown came out with "The Lost Symbol"
-
and "The Last Song" also came out,
-
Nicholas Sparks.
-
And when you just look at the list,
-
you realize, you know, performance-wise
-
there is hardly any difference
between these books or mine.
-
Right?
-
So maybe if Nicholas Sparks' team
works a little harder,
-
he could easily be number one,
-
because it's almost by accident
who ended up at the top.
-
So I said, let's look at the numbers.
I am a data person, right?
-
So let's see what were
the sales for Nicholas Sparks.
-
And it turns out that
that opening weekend,
-
Nicholas Sparks sold more than
a hundred thousand copies,
-
which is an amazing number.
-
You can actually get to the top
of the New York Times Bestseller List
-
by selling 10,000 copies a week,
-
so he tenfold overcame
what he needed to be number one.
-
Yet he wasn't number one. Why?
-
Because there was Dan Brown,
who sold 1.2 million copies that week.
-
(Laughter)
-
And the reason I like this number
is because it shows that really,
-
when it comes to success, it's unbounded,
-
that the best doesn't only get
slightly more than the second best,
-
but gets orders of magnitude more,
-
because success is a collective measure.
-
We give it to them, rather than
we earn it through our performance.
-
So one of things we realized
is that performance,
-
what we do is bounded but success,
which is collective, is unbounded,
-
which makes you wonder,
-
how do you get these
huge differences in success
-
when you have so tiny
differences in performance?
-
And recently I published a book
that I devoted to that very question,
-
and they didn't give enough time
to go over all of that,
-
so I'm going to go back
to the question of alright,
-
you have success, when should that appear?
-
So let's go back to the party spoiler,
-
and ask ourselves,
-
why did Einstein make
this ridiculous statement
-
that only before 30
you could actually be creative?
-
Well, because he looked around himself
and he saw all these fabulous physicists
-
that created quantum mechanics
and modern physics,
-
and they were all in their 20s
and early 30s when they did so.
-
And it's not only him.
-
It's not only observational bias,
-
because there's actually
a whole field of genius research
-
that has documented the fact
that if we look at the people
-
we admire from the past
-
and then we look at what age
did they make their biggest contribution,
-
whether that's music,
whether that's science,
-
whether that's engineering,
-
most of them tend to do so
in their 20s, 30s, early 40s at most.
-
But there's a problem
with this genius research.
-
Well, first of all, it created
the impression to us
-
that creativity equals youth,
-
which is painful, right?
-
(Laughter)
-
And it also has an observational bias,
-
because it only looks at geniuses
-
and doesn't look at ordinary scientists,
-
and doesn't look at all of us and asking,
-
is it really true that creativity
vanishes as we age?
-
So that's exactly what we tried to do,
and this is important for that
-
to actually have references.
-
So let's look at an ordinary
scientist like myself,
-
and let's look at my career.
-
So what you see here is all the papers
that I published from my first paper,
-
it's in 1989 that I was still
in Romania when I did so,
-
til kind of this year.
-
And vertically you see
the impact of the paper,
-
that is, how many citations,
-
how many other papers
have been written that cited that work?
-
And when you look at that,
you see that my career
-
has three roughly different stages.
-
I had the first 10 years
where I work a lot
-
and I don't achieve much.
-
No one seems to care
about what I do, right?
-
There's hardly any impact.
-
That time, I was doing material science,
-
and then I kind of discovered
for myself networks,
-
and then started publishing in network,
-
and that led one high-impact paper
to the other one.
-
And it really felt good.
That was that stage of my career.
-
(Laughter)
-
So the question is,
what happens right now?
-
And we don't know, because there
hasn't been enough time passed yet
-
to actually figure out how much impact
those papers will get.
-
It takes time to acquire.
-
Well, when you look at the data,
-
it seems to be that Einstein,
the genius research, is right,
-
and I'm at that stage of my career.
-
(Laughter)
-
So we said, OK, let's figure out
how does this really happen
-
first in science, right?
-
And in order not to have
the selection bias,
-
to look only at geniuses,
-
we ended up reconstructing the career
of every single scientist
-
from 1900 til today
-
and finding for all scientists
what was their personal best,
-
whether they got the Nobel Prize
or they never did,
-
or no one knows what they did,
even their personal best.
-
And that's what you see
actually in this slide.
-
Each line is a career,
-
and when you have a light blue dot
on the top of that career,
-
it says that was their personal best.
-
And the question is,
-
when did they actually make
their biggest discovery?
-
And to quantify that, we look at
what's the probability
-
that you make your biggest discovery
let's say, one, two, three,
-
or 10 years into your career?
-
We're not looking at real age.
-
We're looking at
what we call academic age.
-
Your academic age starts
when you publish your first papers.
-
I know some of you are still babies.
-
(Laughter)
-
So let's look at the probability
that you publish your highest impact paper
-
and what you see is indeed
the genius research is right.
-
Most scientists tend to publish
their highest impact paper
-
in the first 10, 15 years in their career,
-
and it tanks after that.
-
It tanks so fast that I'm about,
I'm exactly 30 years into my career,
-
and the chance that I will publish a paper
that would have higher impact
-
than anything that I did before
-
is less than one percent.
-
I am in that stage of my career,
according to this data.
-
But there's a problem with that.
-
We're not doing controls properly.
-
So the control would be,
-
how would a scientist look like
who makes random contribution to science?
-
Or what is the productivity
of the scientist?
-
When do they write papers?
-
So we measured the productivity,
-
and amazingly, the productivity,
-
your likelihood of writing a paper
in year one, 10, or 20 in your career
-
is indistinguishable from the likelihood
of having the impact
-
in that part of your career.
-
And to make a long story short,
-
after lots of statistical tests,
there's only one explanation for that,
-
that really the way we scientists work
-
is that every single paper we write,
every project we do,
-
has exactly the same chance
of being our personal best.
-
That is, discovery is like a lottery,
-
and like a lottery ticket,
-
and then the more lottery tickets we buy,
the higher is the chance,
-
and it happens to be so
that most scientists
-
buy most of their lottery tickets
in the first 10, 15 years of their career,
-
and after that,
their productivity decreases.
-
They're not buying
any more lottery tickets.
-
So it looks as if
they would not be creative.
-
In reality, they stopped trying.
-
So when we actually put the data together,
the conclusion is very simple:
-
success can come at any time.
-
It could be your very first
or very last paper of your career.
-
It's totally random
in the space of the projects.
-
It is the productivity that changes.
-
And let me illustrate that.
-
Here is Frank Wilczek,
-
who get the Nobel Prize in Physics
for the very first paper
-
he ever wrote in his career
as a graduate student.
-
More interesting is John Fenn,
-
who at age 70 was forcefully retired
by Yale university.
-
They shut his lab down,
-
and at that moment, he moved
to Virginia Commonwealth University,
-
opened another lab,
-
and it is there at age 72
that he published a paper
-
for which 15 years later he got
the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
-
And you think, OK,
well science is special, right?
-
But what about other areas
where we need to be creative?
-
So let me take another
typical example: entrepreneurship.
-
Silicon Valley,
-
the land of the youth, right?
-
And indeed, when you look at it,
you realize that the biggest awards,
-
the TechCrunch Awards and other awards,
-
are all going to people,
-
an average age for them
is late 20s, very early 30s.
-
You look at who the VCs give the money to,
some of the biggest VC firms,
-
all people in their early 30s.
-
Which, of course, we know:
-
there is this ethos in Silicon Valley
that youth equals success.
-
Not when you look at the data,
-
because it's not only
about forming a company.
-
Forming a company is like productivity:
trying, trying, trying.
-
When you look at which
of these individuals actually put out
-
a successful company, a successful exit,
-
and recently some of our colleagues
looked at exactly that question,
-
and it turns out that yes,
those in the 20s and 30s
-
put out a huge number of companies,
form lots of companies,
-
but most of them go bust,
-
and when you look at the successful exits,
what you see in this particular plot,
-
the older you are, the more likely that
you will actually hit the stock market
-
or the sell the company successfully.
-
This is so strong, actually,
that if you are in the 50s,
-
you are twice as likely
to actually have a successful exit
-
than if you are in your 30s.
-
(Applause)
-
So at the end, what it is
that see, actually?
-
What we see is that creativity has no age.
-
Productivity does, right?
-
Which is telling me that
at the end of the day,
-
if you keep trying
-
(Laughter)
-
you could still succeed
and succeed over and over,
-
so my conclusion is very simple.
-
I am of this age, back in my lab.
-
Thank you.
-
(Applause)