Across universities worldwide, scientific production is typically structured in ways that should, in theory, allow for both the consolidation of knowledge and its periodic renewal. Yet, in many academic settings, research and institutional leadership positions remain occupied for decades, creating a particular form of stability—one that tends to inhibit, rather than promote, generational transition.

This is not a phenomenon restricted to specific countries or disciplines. In diverse scientific systems, research groups and institutes that were born during times of expansion and openness often become, over time, rigid structures that resist transformation. What was once an act of innovation gradually becoming an exercise in preservation. Paradoxically, it is often in academia—an institution built on critical thinking—where change encounters its most subtle resistance.

Scientific leadership should not be determined solely by age or succession by rupture. Ideally, it would be a deliberate, ethical, and gradual process. However, in practice, transitions are frequently postponed indefinitely, under loosely defined arguments regarding the need for more time, experience, or maturity. The consequence is a narrowing of opportunities for emerging scholars—even those with strong credentials and relevant proposals—who face unspoken barriers when attempting to participate in decision-making spaces.

This inertia tends to go unquestioned within institutions. It becomes normalized. Young researchers learn, often early in their careers, that progression is less about merit and more about adapting to structures that seldom evolve. Caution is rewarded over creativity; permanence over circulation. Even within the same generation, the logic of scarcity can reproduce patterns of silent competition rather than collaboration.

In academic fields linked to health, leadership in science often extends beyond university. It shapes how future professionals are trained, how clinical criteria are updated, and how institutions relate to evidence and change. When the same leadership structures remain in place for decades, their influence becomes embedded not only in research priorities, but also in the ways care is delivered and justified. Scientific leadership, in this sense, quietly configures how health systems evolve, and how flexible or rigid they become in the face of new challenges.

Still, it would be unfair to attribute this dynamic to a particular age group. Many senior academics actively support the growth of junior colleagues, viewing mentorship not as control but as accompaniment, and recognizing the need to constantly revitalize scientific inquiry. Some institutions have begun to adopt rotating leadership models and succession criteria to prevent the consolidation of academic authority. These are promising developments, but remain the exception rather than the rule.

What is at stake is not a matter of age, but of structural design. If science is a living system, it should resemble an expanding network rather than a tree with no new shoots. It needs maturity, but also space for new perspectives to emerge—without requiring decades to gain legitimacy. In contexts where scientific research is closely intertwined with professional training and practice—particularly in the health sector—generational transition does not merely refresh ideas: it enables the renewal of approaches that directly shape how we teach, conduct research, and deliver care.

Scientific progress does not stall for lack of ideas, but when the conditions for producing and leading knowledge are frozen in place. Perhaps it is time to calmly and constructively examine how academic leadership is assigned, and what mechanisms are being used—or avoided—to support generational renewal. This is not about stepping down out of obligation, but about opening space out of conviction.

At a time when innovation demands agility, diversity, and adaptability, indefinite leadership in scientific structures seems increasingly unsustainable. Institutionalizing leadership turnover is not a symbolic gesture—it is a strategic decision for the future of universities, health systems,and for science itself.

After all, leadership also means knowing when to make room for others.

Author

David Díaz-Báez is an epidemiologist and director of CePlus, the Interdisciplinary Health Research Center at Universidad El Bosque in Bogotá, Colombia. His academic work focuses on health research methodology and translational science.

Declaration of interests

I have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: none