Despite sympathy for his physical frailty Hawking still seemed to cop plenty of verbal abuse. His successor might expect even more. I notice eminent scientists like Martin Rees don't shy away from controversy and that might be part of the revised job description. Among other things the incumbent might be called on to offer an opinion on nuclear power, climate change or population. Either that or deflect the question in a tactful way. Therefore media savvy could be as important a selection criterion as academic standing.

While having a politically sensitive female is a desirable objective, the prestige of the chair is based on being held by some of the greatest minds ever.

A PC appointee while pandering to society, would lose its cache in the theoretical physics world and thus its status. If Randall is regarded as one of the two or three best physicists in the world, I would applaud her appointment. Otherwise I would see it as the end of a great institution.

Shafi Goldwasser, perhaps. However, are her contributions as signicant as say, Murray Gell-Mann

Histotically, Ada Lovelace (Byron) was very significant to the work of Babbage and the use of "condition sets" in computing. Society would have protected Hypatia from the Christians, today.

Is required that the Chair basically extend on Newton. That is, could an entomologist whom found an astonishing mathematical relationship between insect parts be eligible? Else put, does the recipient need to be involved in a small cluster of mathematical disciplines, whilst other mathematicians are excluded?

"Perhaps now is the time for a woman to occupy this most venerable of scientific chairs."

This begs the question - WHY? The author has not cited one reason. Isn't this a meritocratic position?

If the chair has been 'monopolised' by men perhaps that is because the most meritorious person has been male. If a woman is best suited then go for it but none of this reverse discrimination please. It cheapens the currency.

what bennie said.