Interdisciplinary study needs

Despite the promise of interdisciplinary research, such efforts are suffering from poor organization and are less developed than many scientists think, participants at a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convocation said in 2 days of discussions and presentations last week (January 29 and 30). The meeting, held at NAS headquarters in Washington, DC, was part of a National Academies Keck Futures Initiative, a 15-year effort to explore the potential of interdisciplinary research that started last May with a $40 million grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation. The meeting will result in an advisory report in the coming months.The intense interest in interdisciplinary research in recent years has been “driven by the science and technology itself,” National Science Foundation (NSF) Director Rita Colwell told The Scientist. While noting that the NSF initiated its first interdisciplinary research program 30 years ago, Colwell suggested the recent focus on interdisciplinary research has resulted from “highly compelling,” higher-profile research and increased investments.But do scientists at interdisciplinary research institutes actually interact and share data? Diana Rhoten, a program officer for the Social Science Research Council, presented data suggesting that interactions among many supposed interdisciplinary investigators don't necessarily constitute interdisciplinary research. After surveying scientists from a variety of fields, including physics, biology, and the social sciences, she found that most interactions are “collegial” rather than “close.” The former refers to relationships in which scientists discuss and share notions and concepts, as well as information and journal articles, from their area of interest, but don't exchange primary data. The latter refers to a close, collaborative working relationship in which findings and primary data are freely shared. The disparity was especially prominent among social scientists.Rhoten concluded that interdisciplinary research has not been systematically implemented. Although money and infrastructure are being made available from the “top” level and although there's widespread interest from scientists at the “bottom,” the “middle”—the organizational level—has not been adequately addressed. She found that institutes with common laboratory spaces seemed to have the most frequent, truly interdisciplinary interactions. Rhoten also found that groups of 10 to 15 scientists are the most manageable and productive.Harvey J. Cohen, a professor of pediatrics and participant in Stanford University's new interdisciplinary Bio-X program, mentioned his institute's “laboratory hotel” as one such common space. Interested teams of newly collaborating researchers can apply for and use the lab space for a year or more. Several speakers also said that cafeterias can be effective common spaces. DuPont Vice President of Research and Development Uma Chowdhry noted that her company's cafeteria is surrounded by conference rooms and white boards to encourage brainstorming.Interdisciplinary research also brings its own set of administrative and research problems. Theodore L. Brown, a chemistry professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, cited, for example, the issue of who pays for indirect costs associated with interdisciplinary research—the home department or the institute. Pierre Wiltzius, director of the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, said that his institute divides grants into two categories: multi or single disciplinary. The indirect costs of the former go to the institute; those of the latter go to the department.Several speakers suggested that academic institutions and others must address how interdisciplinary researchers earn tenure and promotions (especially if they have several departmental appointments), how all project participants should receive credit for their accomplishments, where such research may feasibly be published, and how to implement genuinely interdisciplinary peer review.Barry Gold, a program officer at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, recounted lessons learned from his foundation's foray into interdisciplinary program. Before the program was cut in 2002 for budgetary reasons, the foundation reviewed its performance. They concluded that many proposals they received were only superficially interdisciplinary. They also found that they may have done better to look to younger researchers rather than those already committed to interdisciplinary work and that the money doled out—$1 million over 5 years—may have been better spent on the collaborative process itself—travel costs, meetings, and training—than on the primary research. Gold also suggested that the foundation should have had a better mechanism in place to advise grantees who were concerned that their interdisciplinary research collaboration was in danger of falling apart.Editor's note: See a letter on this story.

Interdisciplinary study needs

Efforts are not where they could be, say participants at NAS convocation

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of