`NSF TO DOUBLE NUMBER OF MATH INSTITUTES. American mathematics just multiplied itself by two. On 1 July, the Division of Mathematical Sciences at the National Science Foundation announced the creation of three new mathematical sciences research institutes, bringing the total number of such NSF-funded institutes to six...'The three new institutes are MBI (Mathematical Biosciences Institute), SAMSI (Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute), and ARCC (American Institute of Mathematics Research Conference Center). Below is the response of Australia's National Committee for Mathematics.
That makes it 6-0 in favour of the US. Australian mathematicians have been trying for well over a decade to get federal funding for just one mathematics research institute, let alone six. By 1996 the move had gained so much momentum that it rated a chapter in a book-length report prepared for the Australian Research Council, by a working party appointed by the National Committee for Mathematics. But successive federal governments have turned their respective deaf ears to the call for a mathematics research institute in Australia. By way of contrast, five successive US administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have funded mathematics institutes in the US since 1980.
The main difficulty in Australia has been our governments' `one size fits all' approach to science funding. In the past their rules for supporting a research institute have required each to be either linked closely to specific industries, indeed to specific companies producing identifiable and marketable products (the Cooperative Research Centres), or to address relatively narrow and cohesive research problems (the Special Research Centres). These approaches were perhaps fine if one wished to solve a particular problem using an expensive piece of equipment, but they completely failed to recognise the contributions, and needs, of the intellectual and enabling sciences.
Australian mathematics has been languishing for more than a decade, first edging downhill and now declining at an accelerating pace. As the Science article notes, `the mathematical sciences proved valuable in completing the human genome project.... The promise of the future is even greater.' That promise is held for the US, but not for Australia. Our once-vaunted strengths in the mathematical sciences are falling away, in many cases leaving for abroad, perhaps not to be seen again in this country for a generation. Last Thursday, 11 July, Australia's Chief Statistician called a meeting of statistical scientists from industry, government and universities, motivated by his own organisation's inability to find the mathematical statisticians it needs to analyse Commonwealth Government data on Australia's industry, society and community. Eli Lilly's representative at the meeting reported that his company is experiencing the same problem, and that as a result its US office may shelve the company's plans for growth in Australia. The same problems afflict industry and government across the country.
How will Australia face the challenges of the 21st Century, with our skills in the mathematical sciences in such decline and disarray? How will we develop mathematical models for environmental change and for new, emerging weather patterns (as the US SAMSI institute will do), or for the relationship between genotypes and phenotypes (a task for the new MBI institute in the US)? These research problems, and a great many more that have their foundations in the mathematical sciences, will play critical roles in the growth of modern scientific enterprise for any advanced nation, preparing that country to face technological, environmental and social change. But here in Australia we are lamentably unprepared for work of this type. For example, a senior Australian mathematician, leading international research on global climate change, recently announced his departure from this country to take a post abroad.
The Science article highlights the appreciation of US authorities for the many benefits that mathematics brings, ranging from pathbreaking contributions in basic biological science to pivotal advances in engineering technology, helping to drive economic growth. Philippe Tondeur, the Swiss-born retiring director of the NSF's Division of Mathematical Sciences, which is responsible for the raft of new mathematics institutes discussed in the Science article, has reported elsewhere that these initiatives are needed `...because advances in fundamental mathematical sciences, which embrace mathematics and statistics, are closely intertwined with the discovery process in science, engineering, and technology. The mathematical sciences are accelerating progress across the spectrum of science and engineering, even in traditional descriptive sciences.' These benefits will be available to many nations, but not really to Australia. Least of all will we have access to the crucial training role of mathematics institutes; training is a key criterion against which the success of US institutes is judged.
One does not have to look right across the Pacific to see that our competitors have stolen a march on us. Across the Tasman, the New Zealand government recently announced funding for that country's Mathematical Sciences Institute, to develop and expand New Zealand mathematics for the benefit of that nation. And across the Java Sea, Singapore's new Institute for Mathematical Sciences is already in full swing, its vigorous programs addressing research problems right across science and technology.
We're the odd country out, not the clever country. Nations across Europe, North America and Asia are investing in the mathematical sciences, and in particular in mathematics research institutes. For example, Canada and the US have established a joint facility, not included among those mentioned in the Science article; and in addition, Canada has its own mathematics research institutes. Australia, once again, is bringing up the rear.