With reference to the resolutions that led to adoption of UEB and its use in maths and science, it surely appears the community is far from consensus! I am a professor at a College of Engineering and because we have students from many different states and countries here at my university, we can have students who have experience in UEB Maths or Nemeth code braille, but not both. With limited capacity already, this makes things even more tricky for us when preparing materials and helping faculty address the needs of students.
But I can say that mathematicians and many scientists are very good at learning code systems, and many have learned multiple "natural languages" in their schooling in order to allow them to read research from around the world. English has been one of the principal "natural languages" simply because universities in English-speaking countries have been among the most progressive in maths and science since the middle 20th century. Visual representations of maths and science have been very consistent for much longer than that!
However, if management of code systems for maths and science around the world has the effect of fracturing the uniformity for how maths and science are represented, it would install a very durable structural barrier for blind mathematicians and scientists to read widely from the research in their fields, and thus make it more difficult to contribute to that research. This is something that strikes against the aspirations of those in the community of visually-impaired who might have the desire and ability to pursue their goals.
I am interested in connecting with others who are exploring this issue and looking at possible research on the use of UEB vs. Nemeth Code for Math and Science.
-- Don Winiecki