The Fields Medal fallacy: Why this math prize should return to its roots

math
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The Fields Medal, whose origins date back to the 1930s, will be issued again this year in August to up to four of the world's most accomplished mathematicians under the age of 40. In a commentary for Nature, Michael Barany, a Society of Fellows post-doctoral fellow in history at Dartmouth, proposes that the Fields Medal return to its roots as a tool intended to shape the future of mathematics, rather than recognizing those who have already found the spotlight.

Issued every four years at the International Congress of Mathematicians, the Fields Medal has been likened to a Nobel Prize in mathematics. To date, 55 of the 56 recipients of this have been male and come from a narrow selection of institutional, disciplinary and geographic backgrounds compared with the discipline as a whole

"The current approach to the Fields Medal reinforces biases both within the of mathematics and in broader public attitudes on what makes for a brilliant and typically overlooks how mathematics can be used to advance public good. Medalists today must achieve notable milestones in their research and careers at a young age— something that is a lot easier for those with the most social and institutional privilege," explained Barany, who presented this research Friday at the Joint Mathematics Meetings of the American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America.

Through research in Harvard University's archives, Barany draws on forgotten records behind the deliberations from two early Fields Medal committees, which show, in a way not possible with existing published materials, how the medal's purpose was interpreted following its origins in interwar international conflict.

In 1932, Canadian mathematician John Charles Fields called for the creation of an "International Medal for Outstanding Discoveries in Mathematics" that should be "in recognition of work already done" and "an encouragement for further achievement." According to Barany, early committees avoided rewarding the best-regarded mathematicians and focused instead on identifying those who could benefit from the boost of an international prize to make a difference in the discipline.

However, in 1966, the medal's meaning radically changed. The committee established a strict age limit of 40-years old, which opened the prize up to those who become famous early on in their careers. In addition, the prestige of the Fields Medal was elevated following a controversy relating to one of the medalists, whose colleagues defended him by comparing the Fields Medal to the much higher-profile Nobel prizes.

As Barany explains, shifting recognition to more established mathematicians embraced the kinds of judgement and rivalry that Fields aimed to avoid in its founding, and was counter to the Fields Medal's heritage. He says that future Fields Medal committees can learn from their predecessors' insistence on using the award to make a difference for the future, and address ongoing challenges facing and its place in the world.


Explore further

Child of Vietnam war wins top maths honour

More information: Michael Barany. The Fields Medal should return to its roots, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-00513-8
Journal information: Nature

Provided by Dartmouth College
Citation: The Fields Medal fallacy: Why this math prize should return to its roots (2018, January 16) retrieved 22 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-01-fields-medal-fallacy-math-prize.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
17 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 17, 2018
I was always under the impression (as someone who was in no danger of being considered for it at any age) that the reason the Fields Medal was restricted to those under 40 was because mathematicians invariably do their best work in their 20s and 30s. The age limit means this is recognised and they don't have to wait, like the Nobels, until they are an eminence gris to be recognised.

Jan 17, 2018
The Fields Medal should be bestowed as was originally intended by John Charles Fields.

Jan 29, 2018
A danger of the age limit may be that a strict application could deny recognition to someone whose excellence is - for whatever reason - slow to be recognized. Breakthrough work done in someone's late 30s might fail to be rewarded.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more