> Fortunately, exceptional mathematical fluency is required in only a few disciplines, such as particle physics, astrophysics and information theory.
is embarrassingly incorrect. For one example of why this is wrong, and sticking to E O Wilson's field, consider statistics. No biologist can publish anything nowadays without including some statistical analysis in their paper. So there's a pretty simple choice: either publish statistical stuff you don't understand, or learn enough math to achieve a basic understanding. Integrating probability densities, maximum likelihood estimators, etc etc, you certainly need calculus, and linear algebra will be very helpful too. As a second example, what about theoretical biology? How is a student going to have a hope of understanding theoretical models in behavioral ecology or population genetics without some mathematical training?
What E O Wilson is saying is straight out of the bad old days which ended in the 1990s. Back then, at least in the UK, it was much more common to think that students studying biology didn't need math. Those days are over. Everyone recognizes that the statistical, computational, and theoretical parts of biology are essential for students to come to grips with. I'm a little sad to publicly criticize an old biologist who has made great contributions but no young scientist should read that article and come away with the impression that it's anything other than embarrassingly out of touch.