Please refer to the following article for more details:
'The Fields Medal should return to its roots...' by Michael Barany at link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00513-8
Reference link:
https://www.quora.com/Should-the-criteria-for-selecting-future-Fields-Medalists-change-to-reflect-diversity-in-talent-as-well-as-the-many-areas-in-mathematics
No. Why should it? If you look at the list of price recipients and their main results, you cannot claim that there is one stream of similar work constantly getting awarded. While some price-winners have dug very deep in one field, others have also managed to integrate - in beautiful ways - several fields that were previously developed independently. Who can say how "the best" research should appear? The article that is linked to appears to say that we should decide before-hand what topics deserve mentioning - to steer what the awardees should be working on. I cannot overstate how bad it is to decide what particular field(s) within mathematics (or, for that matter, other sciences) that should be considered more worthy than others - it is a proposterous idea, and one I would not accept. The price should be awarded for work being important, difficult, and - if I may be so pertinent - also very elegant.That's it.
University administrators and grant providers will always try to steer research in directions that are "fruitful" - typically for industry rather than for excellent, free, pure science, as I can recall.
As Gene Hunt (of Ashes To Ashes fame) would say: "End of".
Yes! And the change is long overdue. Currently, the system favors the elite few, well known and established mathematicians from USA and European countries...
To foster global talent and to grow the field of mathematics in its diversity and its outstanding accomplishments, the committee to select future Fields Medalists should select far more diverse candidates from countries in Africa and beyond.
Grigorij Perelman is an excellent counter-example. A loner - as far as I can see - who happened to solve one of the toughest outstanding problems imaginable. Why is he not worthy? I wouldn't call him mainstream, by any means - none of the winners can be said to be mainstream. The claim made above is based on correlation - not causality - as there is no way it can be proven that the award has been given to someone based mainly on her/his sex, country, or university. It's bogus.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics