When I was a graduate student, my teachers were household names in engineering and chemistry. Learning from them, the best in their disciplines, schooled me in synergies that still inform my career. It’s the work of industry to produce large-scale problem solutions, but we devise pathways there. Our thinking yields useful technologies in maybe ten or twenty years. Investing in open-ended, innovative, interdisciplinary research today means more and better solutions tomorrow.

The problem is key. Impactful questions can be interdisciplinary in nature or not, but boundaries should not be put on them. I personally do a lot of interdisciplinary work. We are now delving into cryo electron microscopy while collaborating with engineers to develop bio-sensing devices.

It’s not only the way of the future; it’s the way of the present. Most starting scientists get one chance to be recruited for the big time; just one shot, in my experience, and that unique chance is often unrecognizable as such when it arises. Be ready. Prepare from the beginning. Invest time in formulating and reformulating research approaches that are timely, well framed, utilitarian across areas, and sharp. Articulate your creative vision across related disciplines with verve.

It is very difficult to find funding for straight synthetic organic chemistry. I estimate 80% of my current work is cross disciplinary.

I have always found that my most interesting work is cross disciplinary. A strength of my institution is the sheer scope of communication among colleagues in different fields. It depends on the type of work, of course, but getting yourself into a group of exciting people, even if you are only providing a service, is the best way to enjoy science.

Interdisciplinary research is good.d Expertise in one field is also an important component in others. As an assistant professor do not venture out right away, but keep avenues open for later. While you establish yourself and become recognized, look for the right collaborations in complementary areas – and keep your own contribution very clear.

From the start I’ve felt interdisciplinary projects are important, especially in their solutions to societal needs, but we must always safeguard scientific autonomy and independence. Initially about 20% of our work was cross disciplinary; today I think it is almost 100%.

No question of its importance from the beginning until today.

The future lies with first-class science whether it is interdisciplinary or not. That being said, interdisciplinary projects may have more support from funders these days.

Every group in my field that I can think of is deeply interdisciplinary. Mine comprises imaging technologists, marine and atmospheric engineers, software designers, an anthropologist who studies thought and reasoning, a psychologist who specializes in artifact use and misuse, a philosopher to keep us from sidestepping big questions, and more. From its inception, high connectivity has been integral to artificial intelligence.

I advise becoming expert in one discipline and teaming up with experts in other areas. To me this makes research most fun and rewarding. Do not shy from asking “stupid” basic questions so that everyone sharing the work grasps its full implications. Naturally cross-disciplinary research can have drawbacks too. It is sometimes difficult to secure grants in highly interdisciplinary areas, most likely because expert evaluators who understand the convergences are few in number. Lastly, deep training in one defined area is still most attractive to industry. Ph.D. and Master’s students should be made aware of this.

Mission-oriented research is on the rise. Interdisciplinarity can be dynamic, adaptive, and characterized by broad thinking, which is to say it brings together mixed specializations to solve complex challenges. Assistant professors are advised to engage in an interdisciplinary project. This engagement can expand over a career until it reaches 60-70%, a rough rule of thumb that safeguards space for one’s own specialization.

I completely agree this is the most exciting way to conceptualize research but for the earliest stage think it unwise. The first goal is to establish oneself by careful, solid publications. Address questions you understand using familiar techniques. While focusing on what you’re good at, start considering new, larger directions – on the side!

Yes, there’s a lot we can learn from neighboring research areas. I think my cross disciplinary efforts usually hover between 25-40%.

When I first started, my work was not interdisciplinary. As years passed this changed, not by choice but by necessity. Present day challenges often call for knowledge from several fields. In short, the percentage of time I now invest in cross disciplinary work is near 100%.

There’ll always be a place for foundational science in each discipline. Even if molecules of interest to me are biological, I am a chemist doing chemistry. An important service to, and platform for, chemistry is provided by JACS. By not levying publishing fees, it staves off the dark day we will have no choice but to outsource professional advancement to journals, in effect.

I totally agree that interdisciplinarity in research is the way forward. During the first steps of my career, my research focused exclusively on organic synthesis. My collaborations were limited to laboratories in our department. But as interdisciplinarity became essential to innovative approaches and solutions in science today, I turned to multidisciplinary collaborations and believe it important for young scientists to be introduced to interdisciplinary research from the start of their training.

Yes, I agree it is the way of the future; it has also been my approach from the start. I do agree with other respondents, however, that it is also key to choose a primary area and maintain a strong presence there throughout your career.

I fully agree it is the way of the future. About 30% of my work was interdisciplinary when I was an assistant professor. Now 60 or 70% is.

I’d say so. Sometimes sequentially but usually not, I’ve worked in organic chemistry, synthesis, enzymology, pharmacology, and biochemistry.

Interdisciplinary has various facets: it lends more tools to bigger problems, but it can stretch an individual researcher a bit thin. Though ever-present in the biosciences, it can lead to falling through disciplinary cracks in reviews. Try to ensure the right people see and champion your articles and proposals. I considered myself 100% interdisciplinary, but because I was also known in a defined area I doubt that others saw me that way. Again, interdisciplinary is subject to interpretation.

Yes. I agree.

I agree 100%. My projects, and my colleagues’ as well, are often cross disciplinary, likely because many funding programs actively seek interdisciplinarity today. Still we mustn’t lose sight of crucial core knowledge needed to understand, to check, and to judge research. Look for collaborators who have thorough command of their field.

Interdisciplinarity is project-specific.

Often, yes. At the same time, however, it’s crucial to become very strong in a primary area you choose as your own. Solidly establish yourself in that field, staying current in it every way you can, before and while you make connections elsewhere.

Agreed.