Background and introduction

The Royal Society, formally known as the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, is Britain’s oldest scientific institution. Founded in 1660, it stands as a testament to the eminence of science and a mirror of the scientific and intellectual life in Britain. Geriguis (2017) notes that the Royal Society played a significant role in the eighteenth century as the intellectual catalyst of England’s industrial revolution, in the nineteenth century as the scientific organ of the British empire, and in the twentieth century as an establishment institution of scientific authority (p. 220).

The Royal Society began when a group of mathematicians, astronomers, and physicians began meeting weekly at Gresham College to promote systematic and experimental knowledge of nature (Teich, 2015). In Robert Hooke’s words, the group aimed to “improve knowledge of naturall things, and all useful Arts, Manufactures, Mechanick practises, Engynes and Inventions by Experiments—(not meddling with Divinity, Metaphysics, Moralls, Politicks, Grammar, Rhetorick, or Logick)” (Weld, 1848, p. 146).

Hunter (1989) in his book Establishing the New Science: The Experience of the Early Royal Society, points out that the Royal Society represented a new type of institution, a public body devoted to the corporate pursuit of scientific research, which was unprecedented either in Britain or elsewhere (p. 1). Robert Merton also notes that “[t]he Royal Society was of inestimable importance, both in the propagation of this new point of view and in its actual application. These achievements gain added stature by contrast with the lethargy of the English universities. It is well known that the universities were seats of conservatism and virtual neglect of science, rather than the nurseries of the new philosophy” (pp. 461–462, 1938).

The goal of the Royal Society was to increase the public acceptability of a new science by providing a new forum through the establishment of a permanent body dedicated to the collaborative production of knowledge in a value-free environment (Hunter, 1989, p. 15). The Society also aimed to set up a scientific communication network (López, 1997). Presidents, such as Lord Brouncker, Christopher Wren, and Newton in the earlier period, played an active and important role in planning and organizing research (Hunter, 1989).

In a recent issue of Nature, Wilson and Huppert (2021) present an interesting article demonstrating that Royal Society Presidents not only suppress the lifespan of other Royal Society Fellows but also British Prime Ministers. To support their claim, they analyzed records of the Royal Society to compare the lifespans of the Society’s 59 deceased Presidents with those of senior statesmen and Royal Society Fellows from 1622 to 2018. They found that the Royal Society Presidents lived to an average age of 77 years, which exceeded the lifespan of 49 deceased British Prime Ministers and 7,665 deceased Royal Society Fellows. The data examined by Wilson and Huppert (2021) also shows that British Prime Ministers typically live to the age of 74 years, while Fellows of the Royal Society have an average lifespan of 72 years.Footnote 1

Drawing a direct comparison between the lifespans of scholars and Prime Ministers is not a simple, straightforward exercise. While the two share a top leadership position within an organization, their roles and responsibilities differ significantly, as they operate within distinct sub-cultures, experience varying stress levels, and are subject to diverse ranking systems and hierarchies, each with its own level of stability. Moreover, there are variations in their internal standards, levels of autonomy, and the extent of external scrutiny they face. Furthermore, psychological baggage and their personalities may differ considerably (e.g., the choice of becoming a politician or scientist is subject to a selection effect).Footnote 2 All these factors can lead to variations in health that extend beyond the notion presented by Wilson and Huppert (2021) that socio-economic class as a sole contributing factor.Footnote 3

Also, although a comparison of the lifespans of Royal Society Presidents and Royal Society Fellows is more appropriate, doing so in the nature that Wilson and Huppert (2021) do ignores a key factor that their comparison of Royal Society Presidents and British Prime Ministers also ignores. That is, Royal Society Presidents tend to live longer due to the fact that they typically assume their presidencies later in life. The 62 Royal Society Presidents ascended to the position at an average age of 59.3 years.Footnote 4 In contrast, the 10 British Prime Ministers leading up to the publication of Wilson and Huppert (2021) took that position at an average age of 52.7 years.Footnote 5 In terms of the other comparison made by Wilson and Huppert (2021), when the 62 Royal Society Presidents ascended to the position, they had already survived the 15.4% of other Royal Society Fellows who did not live more than 60 years. Furthermore, there is a higher likelihood of a Royal Society Fellow becoming a Royal Society President as they age, since experience and visibility play crucial roles in the selection process for such a prestigious position. For example, at a notably younger age, around 34 years old on average, compared to the other Fellows who were elected at an average age of 46 years old (Chan & Torgler, 2021).

Perhaps the more intriguing question is whether the Royal Society Presidency has a positive impact on longevity. To this end, our study on Presidents of the Royal Society allows us to examine the influence of holding top leadership positions within esteemed academic organizations. Such leadership roles often come with unique opportunities, such as a broader influence with a more public profile and the responsibility of representing their respective scientific societies (e.g., as “official leader of the British scientific workers” (The Presidency of the Royal Society of London, 1885)). Additionally, leaders in such roles often engage with government bodies and international organizations (e.g., serve as an official adviser to the British government on scientific matters), and interact with the public, all of which further increases one’s social status and prestige beyond the scientific community. This heightened social status aligns with previous research suggesting that higher (perceived) social status or standing is associated with psychobiological consequences (for a detailed discussion, see Rablen & Oswald, 2008).

This context sheds light on the potential influence of the Royal Society Presidency on longevity. To answer whether this prestigious position positively impacts one’s lifespan, a study would need to compare the lifespans of Presidents with those of a control group consisting of scholars who achieved similar scientific success, held comparable prestige, and were of the same age at the time the Presidents were appointed to their positions. A suitable control group could be composed of close contenders who were not ultimately selected as Presidents. Such an approach could elucidate whether a boost in social status associated with leadership roles contributes to increased longevity. Indeed, when applying a more appropriate counterfactual, it appears that Presidents tend to live longer on average than their comparable Fellows.

Prior literature: a brief review

The relationship between the rigors associated with fostering an impactful career and having longevity (i.e., a long lifespan) is so multi-faceted that it deserves continuous attention. A recent study by Chan et al. (2022) ponders this relationship in conjecturing that achieving a pinnacle in academe, such as a major award, especially during early age, may pressure awardees to consistently produce comparable or even superior work that it could potentially lead to premature death. Earlier research by McCann (2001, 2004) suggests such a possibility in highlighting the stress, strains and burdens attending a noteworthy professional career, all of which can accelerate physical decline later in one’s life.Footnote 6 Even in cases where one’s career accomplishments are formally recognized by a major award, that recognition may come years later, only adding to the stress associated with the rigorous work leading up to recognition (Becker, 2004; Merton, 1973; Samuelson, 2004; Zuckerman, 1996).Footnote 7 Moreover, a stressful post-award anxiety over upholding one’s award-worthy reputation may be suffered by the winner of a major academic award, which is itself unhealthy and potentially deleterious to one’s longevity (Hargittai et al., 2014). Nevertheless, using state-specific factors, including demographic and political dynamics, as proxies for stress in their study, Borgschulte and Vogler (2019) found no substantial link between these stress indicators and the life expectancy of US governors.

On the other hand, receipt of a major award at an early age could increase longevity by promoting a healthier lifestyle and efforts to mitigate stress (Chan et al., 2022). Even in situations where an academic luminary has to endure a wait before receiving formal recognition through a major award, the pursuit of survival and eventual recognition can serve as a catalyst for adopting healthier behaviors or finding happiness. When the award is conferred, such professional acknowledgement from one’s peers may not only alleviate doubts and issues with self-confidence but even reduce feelings of alienation (Merton, 1973). In a recent study published by Aranzales et al. (2023), the authors find that Nobel Laureates who experienced a longer waiting time between the conferral of the Prize and the completion of their Prize-winning work had a higher level of positive emotions during their banquet speeches. The choice of a healthier lifestyle may take many forms. For example, Woersdorfer (2010) highlights that interdependencies in consumer behavior arise from either status-seeking consumption or conformity to social norms. These norms develop through learning processes, wherein specific consumption acts become associated with widely shared consumer needs, as exemplified by the nineteenth century emergence of the cleanliness norm (Woersdorfer, 2010). Additionally, recent research by Palma et al. (2017) on prestige-seeking behavior and individual food choices shows that when individuals are partitioned into classes based on evidence of prestige-seeking behavior, even their food consumption is driven by prestige. In that regard, prestige-seeking behavior leads to consumption of healthier types of food (Palma et al., 2017).

Progress and advancements in health science and medicine that occur over time have also promoted longevity. In their study of the longevity of Nobel Prize winners in economics, Mixon and Upadhyaya (2014) point out that the lifespans of Nobel Laureates who won their Nobel Prize in Economics between 1947 and 1993 increased over time.Footnote 8 Much of this increase is attributed by Mixon and Upadhyaya (2014) to human capital investments—investments in health, formal education, etc.—such as those described in the work of Becker (1975, 1996, 1997), Schultz (1962, 1963) and Mincer (1974). As Mixon and Upadhyaya (2014) indicate, investments in human capital leading to advancements in health science and medicine play a crucial role in promoting longer lifespans, especially for males. Education attainment also influences the choices individuals make at a personal level in this context (Fletcher & Frisvold, 2009). Among these advancements are vaccines for measles and pneumonia, which were first licensed in 1963 and 1977, respectively, and the development of statins for treating the risk of heart attacks (Mixon & Upadhyaya, 2014). As a result of these and other human capital investments related to health science and medicine, the cumulative average age at time of receiving the Nobel Prize in economics increased by more than 3 years between 1971 and 2011 (Mixon & Upadhyaya, 2014).

In light of some of the research discussed above, Rablen and Oswald (2008) examine the longevity of Nobel Prize winners vis-à-vis non-winning nominees in both chemistry and physics. As they indicate, their approach constitutes a natural experiment given that one sub-set of individuals (i.e., the Nobel Prize winners) receives a boost in status while the other (i.e., non-winning nominees) does not. Using nineteenth century birth records for a sample of 528 individuals, they found that Nobel Prize winners experienced longer lifespans than non-winning nominees, with an estimated longevity gap of 1–2 years. However, they do not find any evidence of a connection between this gap and the monetary award that comes with the Nobel Prize (Rablen & Oswald, 2008).

Liu et al. (2017) conducted a study on 4190 Chinese scientists, encompassing both nominees and members of two national academies of the People’s Republic of China. Their research aimed to examine if elevated social status, as represented by becoming an academician, is associated with health benefits. The study concluded that achieving this higher status correlates with an increase in life expectancy by approximately 1.2 years, thereby suggesting a potential health advantage linked to elevated social status within esteemed academic circles.

Chan et al. (2022) provide perhaps the most comprehensive examination of the relationship between the conferral of a major academic award and longevity. In doing so, they use data for 387 Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, or physiology/medicine from 1901 to 2000 in order to examine the relationship between the timing of prestigious awards and human longevity. More specifically, the study investigates how the length of a prize winner’s lifespan is impacted by the age at which a prestigious award is won, the number of prestigious awards won, and, interestingly, the delay between one’s academic accomplishments and the receipt of a major award. Controlling for age-specific life expectancy in order to alleviate estimation issues stemming from survival selection, Chan et al. (2022) report that receiving the Nobel Prize 10 years earlier is associated with an additional year of lifespan compared to the average population life expectancy (Chan et al., 2022). On the other hand, the study did not find that the number of prestigious awards received at an earlier age correlated with longevity, or that the duration between Nobel Prize work and the award reception (i.e., waiting time) is associated with changes in longevity (Chan et al., 2022).

Data and analysis

Data

Our dataset is constructed from information retrieved from royalsociety.org.Footnote 9 There is a total of 1,722 current Royal Society Fellows of various types, including Fellow, Foreign Member, Royal Fellow, Honorary Fellow and Statute 12.Footnote 10 Only Fellow members are included in our analysis (for now), of which they currently number 1515.Footnote 11 In addition to these, there are 7407 past Fellows of all membership types. Of these, 6683 (i.e., 90.23%) are “normal” Fellows. This total includes both “Founder Fellows,” who were elected in 1660, and “Original Fellows,” who were elected between 1660 and 1663.Footnote 12 Altogether there are 8317 Fellows. A summary of these data is provided in Table 1. The number of “normal” Fellows elected per year and the number of Presidents elected per decade are shown in Fig. 3.

Table 1 Summary of the fellowship types
Full size table

Next, with the exception of Prince Augustus Frederick, the Duke of Sussex, all of the Royal Society’s Presidents were first elected as Fellows before assuming the presidency. There are 62 Royal Society Presidents, of which four are still alive. Election years are fully recorded by the Royal Society for Presidents, and all but one Fellow.Footnote 13 These data are summarized in Table 2. Although the year of birth is recorded for all 62 Presidents, it is missing for 1,034 (i.e., 12.4%) Fellows. The likelihood of missing information in this regard is highly dependent upon the election year, as indicated in Fig. 4.

Table 2 Election year summary statistics
Full size table

As indicated above, four Royal Society Presidents are still alive. In terms of Fellows, we deemed a Fellow to be still alive if he or she is listed as a current Fellow and there are deceased records available.Footnote 14 This process could, admittedly, lead to underreporting given that there may be deceased Fellows for which there are no deceased records available. This is particularly possible in cases of Fellows who are relatively old. Lastly, some of the deceased records of early Fellows are, as expected, missing. A look at the missing death year observations by election year is provided in Fig. 1. Overall, birth and death records of Fellows elected between 1855 and 1962 were fully accounted for.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Election age of Royal Society Fellows. a Age at Election for Fellows (n = 7282) and Presidents (n = 62). b Age at Fellow Election for Presidents (n = 61) and other Fellows (n = 7221). c Age at Election for Male (n = 2300) and Female (n = 181) Fellows Elected after 1945. d Age at Election for Fellows and Presidents, 1660-Present. e Age at Election for Male and Female Fellows, 1945-Present. For panels a and b, fitted lines are based on Gaussian kernel function, with shaded areas representing 95% confidence intervals. For panels c–e, density is based on Gaussian kernel function

Full size image

We were able to account for the sex of all Royal Society Fellows. This was accomplished through a variety of approaches—first names, pronouns included in biographies, and Wikipedia entries.Footnote 15 Only 2.6% of all Royal Society Fellows are female. The first females elected, Kathleen Lonsdale and Marjory Stephenson, were elected in 1945. All 62 Royal Society Presidents are male.

Analysis

As shown in Fig. 1a, there is a clear trend of increasing age at the time of election to the Royal Society over time, as indicated by the upward trajectory of the red line. In the seventeenth century, the average age of election as a Fellow was 38.7 (n = 441), whereas in the twenty first century it has risen to 56.9. This trend has persisted over the Society’s 360-year history, with an average increase of 0.5 years per decade. However, this rate of increase has accelerated in recent times, with an average increase of 0.9 years per decade in the twentieth century, and a further increase to 2 years per decade in the twenty-first century.

This same trend can also be observed in the age at which Royal Society Presidents are elected, as represented by the blue line in Fig. 1b. In the seventeenth Century, the average age of Presidents at the time of election was 45.8, compared to an average of 65.3 for the four Presidents elected in the twenty-first century. However, the rate of increase in the age of Presidential candidates is less pronounced than that of Fellows, with the age remaining steady at around 65 after the twentieth century.

In Fig. 1c, the age of election distributions for Fellows and Presidents are presented. The mean age of Fellows at the time of election is 46.2 years, with a standard deviation of 11.9 years, resulting in a coefficient of variation of 25.8%. For Presidents, the corresponding figures are a mean age of 59.3 years and a standard deviation of 10.5 years, yielding a coefficient of variation of 17.7%. These two means differ significantly at the highest levels of statistical significance (p < 0.001).

Interestingly, we also observe that the age at which future Presidents are elected as Royal Society Fellows is significantly lower than the overall mean age of election for Fellows, as illustrated in Fig. 1d (p < 0.001). Specifically, the mean age at the time of Fellow election for individuals who later become Presidents (“Presidents-to-be”) is 34 years, with a standard deviation of 7 years (coefficient of variation of 21.2%). In contrast, the mean age of election for other Fellows is 46.3 years, with a standard deviation of 11.9 years (coefficient of variation of 25.7%). However, given that it is not possible to identify current Fellows who may become future Presidents, these data are subject to right-censoring.

When restricting the sample to Royal Society Fellows elected after 1944 and examining the data by sex, we observe that female Fellows were elected on average 3 years later than their male counterparts (Fig. 1e). Specifically, the mean age at election for males is 56 years, with a standard deviation of 8.82 years, whereas for female Fellows, it is 53 years, with a standard deviation of 8.7 years.Footnote 16 Additionally, the mean age at election for female Fellows is significantly higher than that for males at the highest levels of statistical significance (p < 0.001).

Regarding the observed gender difference in election age, it appears to be largely driven by the fact that female Fellows elected prior to 1990 were, on average, older than their male counterparts (see Fig. 1b), who held a disproportionately larger share of the Fellowship. However, if we restrict the analysis to Fellows elected after 1990, the difference in age at election by sex disappears entirely. Specifically, for Fellows elected after 1990, the mean age at election for males is 55.6 years old (with a standard deviation of 8.49 years) and for females, it is 56.3 years old (with a standard deviation of 8.55 years). This difference is not statistically significant (p = 0.411, based on a two-tailed test). Interestingly, Fig. 1e shows an unusual bimodal distribution for female age at election. However, this appears to be a time artifact, as during the 1990s and early 2000s, when female Fellows were elected more frequently, they were elected at a relatively younger age compared to male Fellows. Nonetheless, we also observed that the increases in age at election for female Fellows after 1990 seem to be greater than those for male Fellows. This time artifact is also reflected in the sex-segregated Fellow election age distributions by time periods shown in Fig. 5. Lastly, we note that while the youngest female to be elected as Fellow was 37-year-old Nobel laureate Dorothy Hodgkin, more than 30 male Fellows were elected before the age of 35.Footnote 17

We now turn our attention to the lifespan of all Royal Society Presidents and Fellows. The analysis reveals that the 57 deceased Presidents lived, on average, 5.4 years longer than other deceased Fellows (n = 6029). This difference is statistically significant at the 1% level (p = 0.003, Fig. 2a). However, caution is required in interpreting this result for two reasons. Firstly, the number of Fellows elected has varied significantly over time (Fig. 3a), while the number of Presidents has remained relatively stable, with an average of 1.7 elected per decade (Fig. 3b). Therefore, the comparison between these two groups may be confounded by differences in the underlying age structure and life expectancy of each group. Specifically, as more Fellows were elected in recent decades, this group may include more individuals with higher life expectancy, which could affect the comparison with the relatively stable number of Presidents.Footnote 18 Secondly, by construction, all Presidents assumed office after being conferred the Fellowship (except Prince Augustus Frederick), meaning that, compared to ordinary Fellows, Royal Society Presidents remain “immortal” after being elected to the Fellowship. For example, by the time one-half of all Royal Society Presidents were elected (at around age 61), approximately 20% of Royal Society Fellows had already passed away (as shown in Fig. 2b).Footnote 19 Therefore, if we compare the total lifespan of the two groups, the results would naturally favor the Presidents.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Lifespan of Royal Society Fellows. a Distribution of lifespan of non-president fellows (n = 6029), Presidents (n = 57). b Failure functions of presidents’ age at election and fellows’ lifespan. c Lifespan Comparison between Presidents and Fellows with Comparable Characteristics. d Survival estimates of deceased presidents and fellows with president-comparable characteristics (n = 55)

Full size image

To address these issues, we construct a more appropriate counterfactual by identifying other (male) Fellows who were elected as Fellow within 3 years of the deceased President’s age and within 3 years of their election year. Additionally, we ensured that the comparable Fellows were alive at the age when the President was inaugurated. For example, for Sir Isaac Newton, who was elected as a Royal Society Fellow in 1672 at age 30, we selected Fellows who were elected between 1669 and 1675 at ages ranging from 27 to 33. These Fellows would also have lived past 61 years old, which is the age when Newton took up the Presidency in 1703. The number of comparable Fellows for each President is listed in Table 3, and we identified at least four (up to 45) comparable Fellows for each deceased President.Footnote 20 However, this approach includes several Fellows who are still alive in the comparable pool for recent deceased Presidents, which right-censors the total lifespan for the comparable group. For example, one of the comparable Fellows for Nobel Laureate George Porter (elected as a Fellow in 1960 at age 40 and President in 1985 at age 85) is still alive (Peter Hirsch, elected in 1963). Similarly, seven and 27 out of 45 comparable Fellows for Aaron Klug (elected as President in 1995) and Robert May (elected as President in 2000), respectively, are still alive. Therefore, we excluded Aaron Klug and Robert May from this analysis.

In Fig. 2c, we present the total lifespan of each President compared to the average lifespan of Fellows with similar election characteristics. We found that most Presidents lived longer than their counterparts’ average lifespan. For instance, out of the 55 deceased Presidents, 32 lived longer than their counterpart’s average lifespan. Moreover, 22 Presidents survived beyond the upper bound of the 95% confidence intervals of the mean lifespan, while only 9 passed away before the lower bound of the CI. These findings are further supported by the results depicted in Fig. 2d, which displays the survival function (defined as the number of years lived since being elected as President) for the 55 deceased Presidents and their comparable Fellows. Although the two survival rates were comparable during the first 10 years after Presidency, the difference in the slopes of the survival functions suggests that Presidents (flatter curve) tended to live relatively longer than their comparable Fellows’ average (Log-rank test for equality p 0.014). A paired t-test also indicated that the mean total lifespan of the Presidents (M = 77.3, SD = 11.4) was significantly longer than the average of their counterparts (M = 74.55, SD = 7.18) by 2.76 years (p 0.03 two-tailed test). While an analysis by sex would be intriguing, it is unfeasible as most female Fellows were still alive at the time of the latest election (50 out of 215 female Fellows).Footnote 21

Conclusions

After conducting our analysis, we have observed that Royal Society Presidents have a tendency to live longer than other Royal Society Fellows, which could potentially support a correlation between social status and extended lifespans. While establishing a causal relationship is challenging, we endeavored to examine this association by employing an appropriate counterfactual control group consisting of comparable Fellows. Our findings are consistent with those of Rablen and Oswald (2008), who utilized a credible control group, namely Nobel laureate nominees.

In addition, our analysis revealed that the age at which individuals are elected to the Royal Society and chosen as Royal Society Presidents has increased over time. Furthermore, the data indicated that female Fellows were elected, on average, 3 years later than their male counterparts due to their underrepresentation until the 1990s. Moreover, a considerable number of Royal Society Fellows pass away before reaching the average age at which Royal Society Presidents are elected. Specifically, by the time half of all Royal Society Presidents were elected (around the age of 60), roughly one-fifth of their Royal Society counterparts had already passed away.

In general, the potential mechanisms underlying the longevity advantages conferred by social status are likely to be multifaceted and complex, and further research is necessary to disentangle these mechanisms. One plausible explanation is that the prestige and recognition associated with high-status positions may provide psychological benefits, such as increased self-esteem and a sense of purpose, which could promote health and longevity. Moreover, such positions may provide opportunities for social engagement, which is known to have positive health effects.

It is essential to acknowledge that a rise in social status may not always result in uniformly positive effects on longevity. Recent research by Sasaki et al. (2019) has highlighted the dual nature of social status effects on longevity. Their study examines two prestigious literary awards in Japan, which were given to both established writers and unknown or emerging novelists. The study demonstrates that while a rise in social status can have positive effects, such as increased honour and recognition for emerging writers, it can also have negative effects, particularly when it leads to a significant increase in workload for established novelists. For instance, they find a life-shortening effect from receiving a prize when the negative effects of a rapid and dramatic increase in workload outweigh the positive effects of the award.

Our study primarily focused on the potential positive effects associated with successfully elected leadership positions within esteemed academic organizations, such as the Presidency of the Royal Society. However, we acknowledge that the observed longevity differences could also be explained by the potential negative effects of non-election on Fellows’ longevity. A dedicated comparative study that includes a control group of Fellows who were not considered in the President nomination process may be helpful to disentangle these effects. Furthermore, in the context of our study, it is crucial to consider the potential workload impact associated with leadership roles, such as the presidency of the Royal Society. While the social status and prestige associated with these positions can be substantial, the increased workload and responsibilities may introduce additional stressors that could negatively affect longevity. Therefore, examining the balance between potential positive psychological, biological, and social benefits of high-status positions and potential negative effects [e.g., increased (unpaid) workload, stress and demands] is a critical and valuable avenue for future research.

Our study highlights the importance of using counterfactuals and historical scholarly data, making a significant contribution to the literature on the social determinants of health by demonstrating the potential impact of social status and leadership prestige on health outcomes. Moreover, our findings shed light on the complex interplay between social, cultural, and biological factors in shaping longevity, thus contributing to the ongoing efforts to understand the determinants of health and well-being across the lifespan. However, there may be unmeasured variables that account for the observed relationship between Royal Society Presidency and longevity, such as personality traits or health behaviors that may be more prevalent among individuals who are more likely to become President. Thus, it is essential to recognize that longevity is influenced by a multitude of factors, including the choice to assume such high positions later in life. Further research would be necessary to understand the underlying causal mechanisms and to determine if a boost in social status does indeed affect longevity.

Academia offers a more controlled setting compared to other work environments (Chan et al., 2015), making it a valuable context for investigating the link between social status and longevity. Future research could explore these mechanisms further by comparing the health behaviors or biological markers of health, stress, and well-being (Beatton et al., 2022) of Royal Society Presidents and comparable Fellows. A possible avenue for future research could be to compare the health outcomes and lifestyle factors of scholars before and after their appointment, using a longitudinal design, and comparing those factors with a suitable control group.