| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Renewing
~ T C!
Mathematics
A PLAN FOR THE l990s
Committee on the Mathematical Sciences:
Status and Future Directions
Board on Mathematical Sciences
Corrosion on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1990
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard
for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved
by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences ~ a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it
by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal ~overn-
, cat , _ ,
ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National Academy of
Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences
the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and re-
search, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of
the National Academy of Engineering.
~ _ O
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters per-
taining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National
Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and,
upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O.
Thier is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further-
ing knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general
policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both
the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services
to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is
administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr.
Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Support for this project was provided by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Army
Research Office, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the National Security
Agency, and the Office of Naval Research under contract number DMS-8821296.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-60044
International Standard Book Number 0-309-04228-3
Available from
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
S109
Printed in the United States of America
Summaries of this report are available from the Board on Mathematical Sciences, National Research
Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418.
OCR for page R3
N AT I O N AL RE S E ARC H C O U N C I L
2101 CONSTIT~ION AVENUE
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20418
This report, Renewing U.S. Mathematics: A Plan for the lotus, updates
the 1984 "David Report," which recommended a national plan to renew and
ensure the health of the U.S. mathematical sciences enterprise. The
new report, presenting the committee's assessment of progress made
since 1984, communicates a sense of promise and achievement, but also
the conviction that further corrective action is urgently needed to
ensure the vitality of U.S. mathematics.
Substantial progress can be seen in increased federal support for
graduate education and postdoctoral researchers, as well as in stronger
leadership and improved cohesiveness within the mathematical sciences
community. Yet major problems remain: the continuing inadequacies in
support for mathematical sciences research, especially for principal
investigators; the slow response on the part of many members of the
mathematical sciences community to the serious issues of renewal; and
the absence of a concerted response by universities to problems clearly
described six years ago. The high drop-out rate from mathematical
sciences career paths warns that U.S. mathematical research faculties,
institutions, and education at all levels must be renewed.
At the same time, this report's presentation of some of the exciting
recent achievements in mathematical sciences research, as well as the
wealth of opportunities for future research and applications. Points
. . ~ . ,
to the promise of what is achievable in the mathematical sciences and
by extension in U.S. science and technology.
We have an opportunity now to deal with the issues confronting the
mathematical sciences community and the nation, especially the
challenge of attracting and educating tomorrow's professors and
researchers. This report recommends specific actions to address those
issues. I commend it to your attention.
j~'6~
Frank Press
Chairman
National Research Council
. · ~
fit
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS
2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418
BOARD ON MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
Dr. Frank Press
Chairman, National Research Council
Dear Frank:
April 1990
In submitting to you the report of the Committee on the Mathematical
Sciences: Status and Future Directions ~ - ~
. . . . . ~ _
let me include some comments
and observations which are unusual for a letter of transmittal. I do
so in hopes that their message will be promulgated and heard, not only
in the National Academies but more widely.
Nine years ago you asked me to chair the Ad Hoc Committee on Resources
for the Mathematical Sciences? to review the intellectual health of
mathematical research in the United States and do an in-depth analysis
of federal support for the field. As a communications engineer who
could trace his roots back through his thesis advisor Jerry Wiesner to
the great mathematician Norbert Wiener, and as a science administrator
who had seen first-hand the enormous impact of mathematics and
mathematicians, first at Bell Laboratories and later at Exxon Research
and Engineering, I was pleased to accept. You gave me a superb
committee to do the work.
You are as familiar as I am with what we found: a field brimming with
intellectual vitality, preeminent in the world, and poised to make even
greater contributions to science and technology, yet a field in which
the research infrastructure had eroded. in Dart because federal support
had been allowed to deteriorate.
, . . .
In 1984 the ad hoc committee
recommended a coordinated set of actions to be taken by government,
universities, and the mathematical community over five to ten years to
rebuild the infrastructure and enable mathematics to renew itself.
recommendations.
Halfway through that decade you asked me to chair a different but
equally distinguished committee, on behalf of which I am now reporting.
We were to assess progress made in implementing the 1984
to assess progress made in implementing _
I was happy to accept because I remain vitally
concerned with the health of U.S. mathematics. Our report tells what
has happened in the five years since we published Renewing U.S.
Mathematics: Critical Resource for the Future. and this second retort
recommends what to do now. Our message is in one sense very simple:
balance between support for the mathematical sciences and support for
related fields must be restored; stay the course, see it through. We
do suggest, however, a modification of the original plan for renewal,
tying it more closely to human resource issues and concentrating
attention on the pipeline which develops mathematical and scientific
V
OCR for page R6
talent--issues which loom much larger in the minds of all of us today
than they did five years ago. This modification may require some
policy changes in federal agencies, drawing their research and
educational missions closer together. It will certainly require strong
commitment and bold action by the mathematical sciences community,
working in conjunction with the research universities.
Let me end with a personal perspective. Overall, I am both pleased
and puzzled by progress since 1984--pleased because strong leadership
by individuals in government and the mathematical sciences community
has brought substantial progress, creating movement toward renewal, yet
puzzled by three matters:
1.
2.
3.
the general membership of the mathematical sciences community,
unlike its leadership, seems only~beginning to grasp either the
nature or seriousness of its renewal problems, problems that are
being compounded by the greatly increased need to attend to
revitalization of mathematics education:
the lack of concerted action by the research universities or
their leaders, either in calling attention to the problems of
mathematical research funding or in bolstering their
mathematical sciences departments; and
the inability of the science policy mechanisms of government to
deal decisively with a funding problem as easily soluble and
vitally important as the one we pointed out back in 1984.
On the first point, I plan to continue the work I began five years ago,
of encouraging the mathematical sciences community to act vigorously,
and am happy to see the intense dialogue which is shaping up for 1990
within the community. As former directors of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, we are not very surprised by points 2 and 3. But,
for my own part, I remain somewhat distressed by them. Perhaps we can
join together in carrying a message to government and the universities.
If the mechanisms of science policy cannot solve this critical problem
in mathematics, it is doubtful whether they can solve any problem at
all.
Sincerely,
^0 ~ :~
/6~' 4.
Edward E. David, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the
Mathematical Sciences
At
OCR for page R7
COMMITTEE ON THE MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES:
STATUS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
EDWARD E. DAVID, JR., FED, Inc., Chair
CALVIN C. MOORE, University of California at Berkeley, Vice-Chair
KENNETH J. ARROW, Stanford University
PETER J. BICKEL, University of California at Berkeley
RICHARD D. DELAUER, Fairchild Space and Defense Corp.
GERALD P. DINNEEN, National Academy of Engineering
CHARLES L. FEFFERMAN, Princeton University
MICHAEL E. FISHER, University of Maryland
KENNETH M. HOFFMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
CATHLEEN S. MORAWETZ, New York University
DAVID A. SANCHEZ, Lehigh University
MORRIS TANENBAUM, AT&T
ROBERT E. TARJAN, Princeton University
Ex-officio Member
PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS, Duke University
Board or' Mathematical Sciences Liaison
GUIDO L. WEISS, Washington University
Staff
LAWRENCE FI. COX, Director
DONNA CARTER, Senior Secretary
JO NEVILLE, Administrative Secretary
RUTH E. O'BRIEN, Staff Associate
WILLIAM G. ROSEN, Consultant
JOHN TUCKER, Staff Officer
SCOTT T. WEIDMAN, Senior Staff Officer
vii
OCR for page R8
BOARD ON MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS, Duke University, Chair
LAWRENCE D. BROWN, Cornell University
RONALD DOUGLAS, State University of New York-Stony Brook
DAVID EI)DY, Duke University
FREDERICK W. GEHRING, University of Michigan
JAMES GLIMM, State University of New York-Stony Brook
WILLIAM JACO, American Mathematical Society
JOSEPH KADANE, Carnegie-Mellon University
GERALD J. LIEBERMAN, Stanford University
ALAN NEWELL, University of Arizona
JEROME SACKS, University of Illinois
GUIDO L. WEISS, Washington University
SHMUEL WINOGRAD, IBM TV. Watson Research Center
Ex-officio Member
MORRIS DEGROOT, Carnegie-Mellon University (deceased)
Staff
LAWRENCE H. COX, Director
DONNA CARTER, Senior Secretary
JO NEVILLE, Administrative Secretary
RUTH E. O'BRIEN, Staff Associate
WILLIAM G. ROSEN, Consultant
SEYMOUR SELIG, Staff Officer
JOHN TUCKER, Staff Officer
SCOTT T. WEIDMAN, Senior Staff Officer
· · —
Vt''
OCR for page R9
COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES,
MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS
NORMAN HACKERMAN, Robert A. Welch Foundation, Chair
GEORGE F. CARRIER, Harvard University
HERBERT D. DOAN, The Dow Chemical Company (retired)
DEAN E. EASTMAN, IBM T.~. Watson Research Center
MARYE ANNE FOX, University of Texas
GERHART FRIEDLANDER, Brookhaven National Laboratory
PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS, Duke University
NEAL F. LANE, Rice University
CHRISTOPHER F. MCKEE, University of California at Berkeley
RICHARD S. NICHOLSON, American Association for the Advancement
of Science
JEREMIAH P. OSTRIKER, Princeton University Observatory
ROY F. SCHWITTERS, Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
LARRY L. SMARR, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NORMAN METZGER, Executive Director
ax
l
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Acknowledgments
Many individuals in and beyond the mathematical sciences commu-
nity contributed to this report. The interdisciplinary Committee on
the Mathematical Sciences: Status and Future Directions, which devel-
oped the ideas that form the writing and core of this report, actively
and willingly participated in the creation of it, as is reflected in its
finished form. Their names are listed on a previous page. I particu-
larly acknowledge Calvin C. Moore, vice-chair of the committee, for
seeking out, selecting among, organizing, and presenting well a di-
verse collection of research opportunities in the mathematical sci-
ences. For a field that offers so many rich opportunities for the future,
this was a challenging task. Thanks are due also to some 40 mathe-
matical scientists (listed in Appendix B) for providing written expert
summaries. These summaries provided much of the substance for the
section titled "Accomplishments and Opportunities."
The committee had before it a great deal of information that influ-
enced its conclusions. Much of that information is not contained in
the report itself since it will appear elsewhere. The committee thanks
those who brought it forward, often at considerable effort. Among
them are the directors, deputy directors, and staff of the ICEMAP
federal agencies, and William G. Rosen and other members of the staff
of the Board on Mathematical Sciences. The chairpersons of some 25
university mathematical sciences departments furnished detailed data
on their departments as compared to physics, chemistry, biology, and
engineering departments. The committee also wishes to thank four
chairpersons in particular who, through thoughtful essays, provided
valuable glimpses of conditions for fulfilling the research and educa-
tion goals of the mathematical sciences.
At
OCR for page R12
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thanks are due to the National Science Foundation and the other
ICEMAP federal agencies for commissioning this study ant! to the
Board on Mathematical Sciences, National Research Council (NRC),
for organizing it. The board supplied valuable information and ad-
vice concerning both the research opportunities and wider matters,
through its chairperson, Phillip A. Griffiths, and participants Guido L.
Weiss, Peter J. Bickel, and Cathleen S. Morawetz.
Conscientious and effective support was given to the committee by
the board's staff, particularly by its Executive Director, Lawrence H.
Cox, and Senior Staff Officer Scott T. Weidman. The attention to
detail yet quick response of the NRC offices responsible for the review
and production of the report' and of the independent reviewers of the
report assigned by the NRC, also deserve mention as constructive
influences.
Edward E. David, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the
Mathematical Sciences
· .
Ott
OCR for page R13
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
The Situation in 1984, 11
Imbalance in Support for Research, 15
The 1984 National Plan, 16
The Current Report, 18
RESPONSE TO THE 1984 NATIONAL PLAN
Federal Response, 21
Response of the Universities, 31
Response of the Mathematical Sciences Community, 32
3 RESEARCH PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS..
The Mathematical Sciences Yesterday, 40
The Mathematical Sciences Today, 41
Computers in the Mathematical Sciences, 42
Accomplishments and Opportunities, 44
The Unifying Science, 51
The Production of New Mathematics, 51
4 THE PROBLEM OF RENEWAL .......
Demand for Mathematical Scientists, 55
Shortfall in Supply, 56
Reasons for the Shortfall, 57
Addressing the Shortfall, 61
.... 11
21
39
55
· . · · ~
· · ~
Xtft
OCR for page R14
CONTENTS
5 RECOMMENDATIONS....
Primary Recommendations, 69
Directed Recommendations, 72
APPENDIXES
A Executive Summary of the 1984 Report, 77
B Recent Research Accomplishments and Related
Opportunities, 87
xv
.... . . .. . 69