I'm 78 and still working part-time. Here's how I've stayed involved with what I love, 16 years after retirement.
Socially and career-wise, I have no major regrets. I had several related jobs which I loved, which were well-suited to my temperament, and were financially well-compensated.
I graduated from college as a chemistry major in 1968. I went to dental school out of college, but after a couple of years, I realized it wasn't exactly for me.
I found some brochures advertising NIH-sponsored dental student research programs. While at a program in Salt Lake City, doing research was such an eye-opener that I knew being a graduate student would be a better way to go than continuing the dental program.
Are you an older American comfortable sharing your retirement outlook with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form. We are especially looking to hear from people 80 and older.
I talked to the guy who ran the program, who made an agreement that he would admit me as a Ph.D. student if I finished dental school. That's where my career doing bone research came from.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, my positions were 100% research and writing grant applications. I made the switch to osteoporosis research before it was popular.
I moved around quite a bit, including to a hospital in North Carolina studying kidney disease effects on bone. I had made a friend with an osteoporosis guy in Omaha, and he recruited me to be a researcher on his team.
After 12 years there, the first osteoporosis drug was put on the market in 1995. The guy who led the charge invited me to come to Merck, and I got to use all the new chemicals that Merck was making to create a second-generation osteoporosis drug. It was like heaven.
However, once he retired, the program disintegrated. I was in my late 50s, so I started calculating what my next move might be.
Going to work the day after retiring
Before I retired from Merck, I made a point of getting a handle on my yearly expenses, expecting post-retirement they would be relatively close to what they were while I was working. I had a 401(k) and a 403(b) from a past university, and I had some inheritance money from my mom after she passed away in 2004. I had started using Fidelity Investments back in 1981.
I wish I had known about and been able to practice asset allocation much earlier in life. I wish I had known much earlier the data proving the predictability of annual returns versus risk from various asset allocation strategies over long timeframes.
When we were 56, my wife and I took out long-term care insurance policies. We have maintained them, though the annual premium is about sevenfold more now than when we enrolled.
In 2008, I was offered a buyout and got a year of extra pay, which got me almost to age 63. I figured I could retire and make it for decades from my pension and transitional income, and I knew I'd do freelance consulting.
It looks like I took early retirement, but for four or five more years, I was flying around to conferences and doing consulting. The morning after I took my buyout, I got this call from an attorney at Eli Lilly who needed me to do expert testimony during a lawsuit about a drug.
Running races, peer reviewing papers, and taking it easy
My wife ran a home decorating and window coverings business. While on a trip to the US Virgin Islands, she told me she wanted to take the income from her business and buy a piece of property. We wanted a place to go when it was cold in the winter, though we weren't wild vacationers. It was a big step for us, but we bought a condo in St. Croix in the mid-2000s.
My wife's business was doing well, so we got another one on the beach. When my work was winding down in 2011, we used Airbnb and Verbo to list them. Until 2017, we figured out how to make them work as vacation rental properties. We balanced that with getting some people who lived in the Virgin Islands to do the local management stuff. Hurricane Maria ripped the roof off the beachfront condo, which was never the same again, so we sold them.
We moved to The Villages, Florida, in March of 2010. It was a place which my wife, who had patiently followed my US-wide odyssey doing research around the US, had always said she thought she would like. It has been our longest stop.
We projected we would be more able to travel in the early years of retirement, and we did river and ocean cruises. We've gradually started to slow down and have been traveling less in the last five years.
Before Covid and after two years of brisk walking, I started entering 5Ks. Thinking of all those my age who don't even enter gave me an even better feeling. I got all the way down to 42 minutes. I can still do a mile in 16 minutes.
I still peer review papers on bone science for medical journals. I've been able to stay current on today's knowledge. I like to pass down ideas on career moves that students should make. I enjoy talking to young people who are at those crucial phases and are looking for ideas. It's a fulfilling part of retirement.
We have monthly expenses of about $9,400. We have monthly pre-tax income from three sources: combined Social Security of $5400, an annuity of $300, and an investment mix that historically both returns an average of ~$5,800 over an extended time period and lets us sleep at night.
My Fidelity account executive in The Villages took my accounts and ran an algorithm on them, then showed me a historical evaluation of what various mixes of allocations were going to return. I can sleep at night with what I have now, and I've done some opportunistic buying over the last three or four years.
Being older is about gaining all the easy advantages one can, to get through and avoid preventable illness. Because of my background, I can read the medical literature. I do my best to learn about activities and habits to do and avoid, and how to best treat conditions that I personally have. With health, remember this old adage. Smart people learn from their own mistakes. Wise people learn from others' mistakes.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
IO Biotech sees path forward for skin cancer vaccine despite study setback
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. An experimental cancer vaccine fell short of its main objective in a Phase 3 trial in melanoma, causing shares of the shot's developer, IO Biotech, to fall by double digits on Monday. IO Biotech, however, still believes the vaccine performed well enough to warrant a potential approval consideration from U.S. regulators. The company noted how the study, which compared a regimen of its shot and Merck & Co.'s immunotherapy Keytruda to Keytruda alone, failed by the slimmest of margins. Executives also pointed to other analyses showing potentially stronger benefits among those who hadn't previously received drugs like Keytruda or aren't likely to respond to them. 'It was a very narrow miss, just by a hair,' said Mai-Britt Zocca, IO's CEO, on a Monday conference call with Wall Street analysts. Called Cylembio, IO's cancer vaccine consists of engineered peptides that are supposed to provoke an immune response to certain proteins expressed on tumor cells. Those proteins are two of the immune 'checkpoints,' PD-L1 and IDO1, long studied by drugmakers. Cylembio is designed as an 'off-the-shelf' vaccine, which would be simpler to produce than the 'personalized' shots being developed by Moderna, BioNTech and others. IO Biotech's trial enrolled more than 400 people whose newly diagnosed melanoma couldn't be surgically removed or had spread to other parts of the body. Study participants were randomized to receive Keytruda alone or Keytruda plus Cylembio. The company's primary objective was to prove the Cylembio-Keytruda combination could hold tumors in check longer than Keytruda alone. According to the company, people who got the vaccine-immunotherapy combination had a 23% lower relative risk of dying or their disease progressing than those who got Keytruda alone, which didn't meet the threshold of statistical significance. People who tested negative for a protein linked to immunotherapy responses had a 46% relative risk reduction, IO Biotech said. That analysis was part of IO's pre-specified statistical plan, indicating that regulators may view it more favorably. Yet another analysis of people who hadn't previously received Keytruda or other drugs like it wasn't part of that plan. IO Biotech's finding that those enrollees had a 26% relative risk reduction in disease progression or death is considered 'nominal,' then, meaning FDA reviewers would likely tread cautiously. IO executives said they will meet with the FDA in the third quarter to discuss the findings, and hope to seek approval by the end of the year. Investors appear skeptical of the company's chances, though. IO Biotech's stock price fell by more than 20% during Monday morning trading, adding more losses for a company that's lost most of its value since going public in 2021. Zocca said the company had closed the second quarter with $28 million in cash, providing it with enough to finance operations through the first quarter of 2026. The company needs positive study data as well as a successful FDA submission to unlock a 15 million euro, or $17.4 million, tranche of a loan it has secured from the European Investment Bank. Recommended Reading Lilly's new Alzheimer's data may both help and hinder rival Biogen Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Jay Bhattacharya: Why the NIH is pivoting away from mRNA vaccines
Jay Bhattacharya is director of the National Institutes of Health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' decision to wind down its mRNA vaccine development activities marks a necessary pivot in how we steward public health innovations in vaccines. The right path requires us to consider the inherent strengths and weaknesses of a technology as well as any alternatives, along with public attitudes and experience with the technology. The mRNA platform is promising technology. I do not dispute its potential. In the future, it may yet deliver breakthroughs in treating diseases such as cancer, and HHS is continuing to invest in ongoing research on applications in oncology and other complex diseases. But as a vaccine intended for broad public use, especially during a public health emergency, the platform has failed a crucial test: earning public trust. No matter how elegant the science, a platform that lacks credibility among the people it seeks to protect cannot fulfill its public health mission. It is critical to understand the development of the mRNA coronavirus vaccines in the context of the very successful Operation Warp Speed launched during the first Trump administration. Operation Warp Speed represented a paradigm shift in how the government should invest in new technologies and solutions and embrace strategic investments in public-private partnerships, innovation in trial design and removal of bureaucratic red tape to allow parallel rather than sequential vaccine development. It produced a new vaccine in record time and also helped develop a successful monoclonal antibody. Unfortunately, the Biden administration did not manage public trust in the coronavirus vaccines, largely because it chose a strategy of mandates rather than a risk-based approach and did not properly acknowledge Americans' growing concerns regarding safety and effectiveness. Consider the data: In a late 2024 Pew Research Center survey, 60 percent of American adults reported no intention of getting an updated coronavirus mRNA vaccine despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's advice that nearly all adults receive yet another dose. As of late April 2025 (the latest data publicly reported by the CDC), only 13 percent of children between the ages of six months and 17 years had received an updated coronavirus vaccine, even though the Biden-era CDC had placed the vaccine on the childhood immunization schedule. In 2021, the Biden administration's HHS spent nearly a billion dollars on a campaign supporting the coronavirus vaccine, the most expensive pharmaceutical advertising campaign in history. The government spent the money on a vast number of TV, radio and internet spots, which misinformed the American public that the vaccine would protect them from contracting and spreading covid. Nevertheless, just a few years later, less than half the U.S. adult population will heed the CDC's guidance. Some outlets have blamed the poor coronavirus mRNA vaccine uptake on poor messaging or 'anti-vax' counter-messaging. But the Biden administration made suppression of speech — and a mandate for all on the vaccine — into a priority. The failure was thus not a communications problem. It is a trust problem due to the Biden administration's scientific overreach, public pressure and, frankly, arrogance. In addition to the trust problem, the mRNA technology has special biological features that make it different from other vaccines in that it (ideally) instructs our cells to produce proteins that subsequently invoke an immune response. To do so with complete confidence about vaccine safety and efficacy requires an exact understanding of dosage, biodistribution and off-target effects. Unfortunately, we fall short on all three. We lack clarity on how much antigen each mRNA molecule produces, where in the body the mRNA product winds up, how long it stays in the body, and whether unintended proteins are created. From a regulatory perspective, getting approval for a vaccine with such inherent uncertainties should be difficult. Still, I do not believe the mRNA vaccines caused either mass harm on the one hand or saved 14 million lives on the other. Those estimates swing wildly based on speculative modeling, not concrete evidence. A recent modeling study concluded that the global coronavirus vaccination campaign saved 2.5 million lives from 2020 to 2024, mainly among the elderly. The scientific controversy over the vaccine's effect on mortality rages on. Science isn't propaganda. It's humility. And when public health officials stopped communicating with humility, we lost much of the public, an absolute necessity for any vaccine platform. I am not here to litigate the past. I am here to chart a better path forward. That is why the NIH, under the leadership of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is investing in new vaccine technologies — based on whole-virus inactivated vaccines, which offer a broader immune response and have a longer track record of safety and public acceptance. We are continuing the Operation Warp Speed model of investing in technology with the most potential to help Americans. We will move forward with scientific rigor, transparency and humility. At the NIH, we will fund promising research based not on hype, but on evidence. And I will continue to use my platform to communicate candidly in public conversations where debate and disagreement are welcomed. We are entering a new era of public health, grounded not in wishful thinking or performative consensus, but in open inquiry and respect for the American people's intelligence. The only way to rebuild trust is to earn it — one honest conversation at a time.


Scientific American
4 hours ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'