September 25, 2013

Google Logo Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

Why So Few Mathematicians? Part 2

In a previous post I discussed the question of why relatively few mathematical laureates came to the Heidelberg Laureate Forum. The question has continued to be much discussed at the meeting, and I have heard at least three more theories that I think may have some validity.

By Dana Mackenzie

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

In a previous post I discussed the question of why relatively few mathematical laureates came to the Heidelberg Laureate Forum. The question has continued to be much discussed at the meeting, and I have heard at least three more theories that I think may have some validity. I offer these theories in an attempt to be helpful about how to improve the meeting in the future.

In my first post I discussed two possibilities:

  • The timing was bad. (This was Ingrid Daubechies' suggestion)

  • Mathematicians do not properly value the opportunities offered by a multidisciplinary conference. (This was my theory.)

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.

In addition I have heard three more theories, which I will offer anonymously in case the people who discussed them with me would prefer not to have their names attached to them.

  • Conferences play a different and more important role in the culture of computer science. In particular, a conference talk is often equivalent to a published paper, which is not true in mathematics.

  • Many of the computer science laureates recently attended the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) meeting, so this is almost like a continuation of that meeting for them. They also might have had more peer pressure, or peer encouragement. ("Are you going to the Heidelberg meeting? Yes? So am I.") Mathematicians had no equivalent pre-Forum forum.

  • In general, the computer science laureates form a more closely knit network. According to my count, 25 of the 28 Turing laureates attending this conference work or worked in Anglophone countries (U.S., Canada, U.K.) By contrast, Fields Medalists are a more international group, with strong contingents from France and Russia and other winners from all over the globe. This means that it is harder to get them together in one place, and peer encouragement might not work as well because they just don't think of themselves as a peer group.

Please feel free to leave a comment if you have your own theory! I am sure that the organizers would like to understand why the mathematicians didn't come and how to attract more of them in the future.

Also see John's posting: Fields Medal Genealogy

.....

This blog post originates from the official blog of the 1st Heidelberg Laureate Forum (HLF) which takes place September 22 - 27, 2013 in Heidelberg, Germany. 40 Abel, Fields, and Turing Laureates will gather to meet a select group of 200 young researchers. Dana Mackenzie is a member of the HLF blog team. Please find all his postings on the HLF blog.

Dana Mackenzie is a freelance mathematics and science writer for diverse science magazine and author of several books. His most recent book is The Universe in Zero Words: The Story of Mathematics as Told Through Equations, published in 2012 by Princeton University Press. He was the winner of the 2012 Communications Award presented by the Joint Policy Board for Mathematics. Besides writing, the two interests that have stuck with him the longest are chess and folk dancing. More about Dana at his website.

More by Dana Mackenzie

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe