professionals.... It is the young, bright, junior scientists (the core of our molecular biological vaccine development effort) that I must attempt to protect. Únlike health care providers, many of these specialists are one or two deep in the free world. They are irreplaceable. Appellants contend in particular that Franz’s statement that he must protect “the young, bright, junior scientists” evinces a discriminatory animus against older employees. Appellants also point to statements attributed to Colonel Glenn, the Director of the Medical Systems Integration Office Headquarters, which,.like the USAMRIID, is a part of the United States Army Medical Research and Material Command (“USAMRMC”). As appellants note, Glenn expressed concern about the aging workforce at (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Cone v. Longmont United Hosp. Ass’n, 14 F.3d
holding that adea plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was replaced by someone only two years younger and within the protected age group and there was no other evidence of age discriminatory motive holding that an employers reference to younger employees as three young tigers was not enough to show age discrimination holding that references to the need to attract newer younger people or young blood were insufficient evidence of age bias because they were isolated and merely reflected a truism of business life holding that the statement made two years prior to adverse employment action that there comes a time when we all have to make way for younger people did not create an inference of age discrimination given that it was stated as a  truism with no disparaging overtones holding that repeated remarks about need to bring in new blood or young blood by one of the decisionmakers were not stray remarks and may permit inference of discrimination