Cédric Villani: the leadership of a science leader

Cédric Villani / Mathematician, Professor of Université de Lyon, Director of Institut Henri Poincaré / 2016-06-14

One hundred years from now, when people hear the name Cédric Villani, the first words that pop into their minds will probably be “French mathematician,” “one of the 21st century’s great mathematical minds” and “Fields Medal laureate.” He will also be easily linked to progress in partial differential equations and mathematical physics—the fields he’s primarily studied.

But would that be enough to satisfy him?

As director of the Institute Henri Poincaré, one of the oldest and most prestigious organizations dedicated to mathematics and theoretical physics, he is busy strengthening the institute’s international reputation and influence in today’s highly dynamic world.

His everyday schedule is now filled with administrative and public communication activities, which is completely different from a typical mathematician’s world. Running a big organization, motivating people, selling ideas to the government and public to get attention and financial support—what does all this mean to him?

Read this article in Chinese

Q&A

You have just published your fourth general audience book, people see you on TV, and you’ve given a series of radio lectures on culture. You are managing a world class science institute, and you are also a mathematician. What are the priorities on your agenda these days?

Apart from personal stuff, a great deal of my efforts today are put toward promoting mathematics. I’ve been working for the past four years on the expansion of the Institute Henri Poincaré and building a mathematics museum that will open in 2020. It’s the first of its kind, so it will take some time to get everything in place—funding, construction, management structures and people, etc.

That means you are spending more time on activities other than math? 

Much more. But it isn’t a surprise. The Fields Medal is just like a Nobel Prize: you have to give up the quiet life of a researcher and engage in new activities. Being famous allows you to do many things, and at the same time it comes with responsibilities.

As the director of a world class research institute, how do you handle the diverse management tasks inherently involved with complex interpersonal relations, rules and regulations？

In management, just as in math, there is no one-size-fits-all recipe. You have times when you need to be more intuitive—like when attending events, dealing with structural change, or hiring people, you have to think seriously and seek advice from other people.

I have a great team. New people are hired to be in charge of new missions. To a large extent, successful administration is about finding the right people—people who are not only competent, but are also dedicated and whom you can count on. This is essential. I’ve gradually come to learn that whenever there is something tough occurring, no matter what the problem is, there is always a solution, and we will find it.

The main thing is the time schedule, which is very different. Management involves everything going faster. Decisions have to be made faster and some results have to be delivered on time. So skill in time management is a big thing. In a single day, there can be up to nine appointments. My way is to do everything in the same amount of time, and to use everything for everything.

Management also requires much more human contact. You need to talk with people all the time. Leading figures in mathematics do not necessarily exchange very much. Gauss, for instance, was the leader of his time and never left his place. But to manage an institution, human contact is very important. If you don’t reach out enough, things start falling apart.

Motivating people is a key issue. But it’s not so much about personal benefits, but rather, what they see as the goal of the institute. To be more precise, it is the idea that they are striving to have a leading institute, to be respected in the world, to be part of the progress of French science in general. The image of the organization is extremely important. This is one of the reasons why I have to attend TV shows and publish books. 

You talk publicly about various topics—AI, public policy, immigration, economic decay, culture…but in China, people don’t think this is helpful for an intellectual’s professional image. How do you see this distinction?

The defining moment for modern France was the revolution in 1789, which was created by everybody. In those days, scientists were extremely active in public debate, participated in the organization of the state, advised the government, and some of them became ministers. In a sense, it has remained a convention that intellectuals actively participate in public life, and it is also the duty of the intellectual people to give their opinions and advice to the public.

It is now less the case than it used to be, since academics of newer generations prefer to write only for their peers. But becoming famous for your scientific work opens many doors. If a famous scientist has a book published, he or she will be invited everywhere to speak. They will be asked their opinions about current matters. It is part of our cultural identity.

Some of my colleagues are uncomfortable with that because the critics are always capricious and sometimes don’t really understand our specialties. But I think it is really important that we are part of the debates. After all, democracy means to participate. I think it’s our responsibility as intellectuals to contribute.

Apart from public debates, mathematicians are also more and more engaged in business life—either by joining R&D departments in large corporations or even launching startups. But even though one can rejoice at seeing more mathematicians in business, they are also much needed in schools. Is it reasonable to try to “produce” more mathematicians? Or should we think differently and, for instance, create career paths between academic research, teaching and business?

You’re right to insist on the connections, because for sure, an ecosystem is largely about the connections between specialists and society, between various fields, and it certainly takes an effort on a global scale.

Actually, at Institute Henri Poincaré, we are very keen on this. We have very strong institutional links with global experts and communities. The mathematics museum we are working on will become the intersection of education, research and industrial organizations. We host meetings explaining mathematical problems to industries as well as broad audience lectures for all people. We’re trying to reach everybody in the ecosystem.

According to polls, mathematician now seems to be a fashionable job. What does that say to you?

It is partly the result of the trends in technology. We rely more and more on digital and mathematical modeling, and math plays a central role in that revolution. But it is also partly a result of the big efforts made by my generation, which has worked hard to raise mathematicians’ image in society and institutions.

To make math more popular, what’s the next step after the communication effort?

Institutions. Creating, developing and strengthening institutions. Communication per se is nothing. In the end you need teachers for teaching and training, and you need institutions for providing means and projects and so on. There are different actors who all have their roles to play. Communication is the key for making everything possible and connecting these actors in society.

How do you see the future of French competence in science and research?

It’s interesting that you ask this question, because recently it was raised publicly after the (French) government decided to cut public funding for scientific research. Last week, I was part of a group of eight scientists, including 7 Nobel Laureates, that initiated a public protest against the proposal. The public letter we wrote to the government was published by a large French newspaper. We were invited to speak on TV and radio, and finally were received by the president, who accepted reinstating the research budget as it should have been in the first place.

The government’s reaction to our voice and protest on the budget cutting plan has shown how much scientists are respected in our society. Things like this make me very optimistic. You can see clearly from me—just for being a recognized mathematician, I have gained access to media channels to write and speak about whatever I believe.

However, optimism is not rational. It is like religion. We continue to be optimistic, but also need to set challenges and reach for them.