Four researchers offer tips for excelling in interdisciplinary training

How to switch research fields successfully

Four researchers offer tips for excelling in interdisciplinary training

Interdisciplinary training and research are increasingly valued for their contributions to solving complex problems that a single discipline cannot overcome. One 2021 study that tracked more than 44,000 grants awarded in the United Kingdom found that researchers who straddle fields have a crucial role as academic brokers, bridging gaps between seemingly disconnected subject areas (Y. Sun et al. Commun. Phys. 4, 263; 2021). It also found that, from 2006 to 2018, the fraction of researchers who were cross-disciplinary increased from 17% to 26%.

However, those who switch fields to gain an interdisciplinary perspective can face costs. Researchers might struggle to pick up new knowledge and experimental techniques, and are likely to have to re-establish their peer-support and scientific networks.

There is also concern about peer-review bias against interdisciplinary research. The same study revealed that, from 2006 to 2013, although mono-disciplinary and interdisciplinary researchers had similar publication rates, the latter received almost 8% fewer citations, on average.

In the long term, however, interdisciplinary research is on the rise and probably generates greater impact on innovations and society than does single-discipline research. On average, for example, compared with their mono-disciplinary colleagues, interdisciplinary researchers are likely to receive larger research grants, with a longer duration to focus on big scientific questions. Nature talked to four researchers to get their tips on switching fields and excelling.

VINOD SURESH: Join an experienced team to get the support you need

Senior lecturer at the Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Interdisciplinary research training has never been more important, owing to the complexity of problems that society is facing. Switching fields can enable you to appreciate new perspectives and create solutions that maximize everyone’s interests. I am one of the principal investigators leading a project to characterize the microbiomes of farm animals to enable precision livestock farming, a modern practice that uses technology to boost productivity.

My focus is developing mathematical models to represent the activities of the microbiome in a cow’s stomach. To create a reliable rumen model, I care most about whether my model matches experimental data. However, for the team members who are animal scientists and veterinarians, their priority is maximizing productivity and whether our data-collection process is compatible with animal welfare. Switching research fields has taught me to approach a problem from different angles.

Switching did not come easily for me in terms of learning new experimental skills. I was trained in theoretical modelling during my PhD, but I felt that I needed extra training to collect experimental raw data myself, so that my models would reflect reality and not rely on published data that I had no control over. So I pursued a postdoc at the University of California, Irvine, where I investigated nitric oxide transport and metabolism in the lungs. I remember experiencing experimental failures in working with cells, because they were not growing well to form an airway epithelial layer. And I was worried that my lower-than-expected productivity was going to harm my career progress.

After several failures with a cell-culture model, I remember being surrounded by laboratory members who gave me technical advice and emotional support. I would advise researchers planning to switch fields to join a lab that is experienced in training novices, because both technical and social support are key to overcoming challenges.

Researchers might need to re-establish their scientific networks after switching fields. I’m an introvert, and that makes networking harder. I’ve adopted a strategy to start building relationships on the basis of a common research interest. In this way, other parties can sense your enthusiasm for science and you can explain how your background can contribute fresh perspectives to the field.

AUDREY KHOO TZE TING: Come prepared and know what you are getting into

Postdoctoral fellow in neuroscience at Duke–National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore.

Because my original plan was to pursue a music-therapy career, my undergraduate degree was in psychology and music. For my final-year honour’s project, I chose a physiological psychology investigation, in which I researched the neural mechanisms of alcohol addiction in rodents. Despite this being my first exposure to a wet lab, as well as being a huge contrast to the human-participant psychology projects I had done before, I thoroughly enjoyed it and decided to switch fields to pursue a PhD in neuroscience.

I was disadvantaged compared with my peers who had a background in neuroscience and biology, because my most recent experience with biology was in secondary school. To convince the PhD interview and admissions panel that I was genuinely interested, I read up extensively on the emerging techniques and technologies being used to elucidate the functions of the brain. My advice is to show that you know the ‘current affairs’ of the field you are moving to, and that you are mentally prepared to take on the challenge.

One interviewer gave me a list of qualities and characteristics, asked me to rank them according to their importance to a PhD student, and followed up with questions around why I’d ranked them as I did. Another asked whether I had unanswered research questions from my past project, what sorts of follow-up experiments I would carry out if I stayed in the field, and why.

I am currently developing techniques to treat Parkinson’s disease, by helping transplanted neurons to survive and integrate better into the brain. Having a background in psychology and neuroscience has helped me tremendously. In psychology, we study a problem using a top-down approach in which we look at a behaviour and try to identify its causes. It’s a useful system-level approach, but a caveat is that there might be many factors causing that behaviour and their relationships can be unclear. By contrast, neuroscience has a bottom-up approach in which the starting point is usually a gene, and researchers are interested to know how mutating this gene affects neuronal transmission and then behaviours. This method provides a direct, mechanistic connection between a gene and a behaviour, but it is inadequate when analysing complex behaviours regulated by many genes, as in psychiatry.

I take advantage of my background to make use of both approaches, which I think are complementary. A top-down approach in my current research might look like using physical rehabilitation to help transplanted neuronal grafts grow better, while a bottom-up approach might look like the addition of a drug during transplantation to increase survival. They are two ways of looking at the same problem, which might have very different underlying mechanisms in promoting graft survival but point towards a common goal, of treating Parkinson’s disease.

PATRICIA DANKERS: Build your expertise before connecting to other fields

Professor of biomedical materials and chemistry at Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

I took an unconventional research path compared with my peers. I completed PhDs in both chemistry and medical sciences, and doing so prepared me for my current role as leader of an interdisciplinary research group. I defended my first PhD, in chemistry, in 2006, and then worked at SupraPolix, a company in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. There, I helped to develop polymers for applications such as biomedical implants, while pursuing my second PhD at the University Medical Center Groningen.

In 2008, I started as an assistant professor at Eindhoven University of Technology. A key motivation for starting a second PhD was my interest in supramolecular chemistry — a subdiscipline focused on directed, reversible molecular interactions. I wanted to apply it to biology and improve health.

Having trained as a chemist, I was focused on chemical synthesis and reactions that I could take my time to develop, up to a few years, but doctors are most interested in research that can benefit their patients quickly.

I remember feeling surprised when a physician told me that I needed to develop my biomaterials faster so that it could be used in patients, a goal I felt was still very far away. I also had my fair share of ‘language’ learning to do because biologists and medical doctors were always eager to talk about cellular signalling pathways and diseases, respectively, areas that I was not exposed to as a chemist.

If you are a researcher considering switching fields, first, you must love learning. There will be steep learning curves that might feel daunting, but if you love what you do, you will overcome them eventually. Second, start small. You do not need to switch fields immediately or embark on a second PhD, as I did. You can start with mini-interdisciplinary projects with colleagues and friends before deciding whether this path works for you.

Third, and most important, build your core expertise before switching fields. Although my second PhD was in medical sciences, I tapped into my knowledge of supramolecular chemistry to design biomaterials to improve kidney tissue regeneration. This allowed me to hone my core expertise and connect to a new field. One concern I have in science is an overemphasis on interdisciplinary training in modern research programmes — I worry that it will produce researchers who have breadth, but lack the depth of expertise for solving the hard problems.

You should also trust that your research experiences will prepare you for the challenges of switching field. The training I received during my first PhD helped me to complete the experimental part of my second PhD in only two-and-a-half years because I could apply similar troubleshooting skills. Typically, that programme would have taken four years.

Interdisciplinary research is a great way to connect fundamental and applied sciences and then use that synergy to solve problems. An example I love to share is the creation of vascular grafts and heart valves based on supramolecular polymers, which we demonstrated in an academic lab for the first time in 2004. These are currently being tested by the Dutch company Xeltis in clinical studies, ultimately to benefit patients. This would never have happened without a multidisciplinary team.

HENRIQUE LEITÃO: Convince sceptics of your commitment

Professor of history and philosophy of sciences at the University of Lisbon, Portugal.

I have always had an interest in the humanities, and one of my hobbies is to study ancient languages such as Latin. During my PhD in theoretical physics, I had the opportunity to read ancient mathematics manuscripts written in Latin, and was immediately fascinated by the brilliant work of scientists centuries ago. For example, mathematicians in the sixteenth century were trying to study curves, but calculus had not yet been invented. They solved problems using smart approximation methods.

Although I was drawn to studying the history of science, I did not switch fields until 2002, four years after I completed my PhD, when I was contacted by the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon to edit the works of a sixteenth-century Portuguese mathematician. In addition to the scholarly challenge, I felt that this would be a very meaningful appointment because we need more Portuguese scientists as role models to motivate young people in my country to consider science careers.

Fast forward 21 years, and my research now includes studying ancient nautical handbooks of navigation, called rutters, and maps to understand how the people in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries made long-distance sea voyages — expeditions that shaped concepts of Earth, including geomagnetism, stable wind patterns and oceanic currents.

Switching fields is a career path that I did not consciously plan for. My advice is for researchers to think carefully about whether their talents match the problems in the new field that they are interested in solving. Every year, I have science undergraduates interested in pursuing graduate research in the history of science with my group. To help them make the right career choice, I have a serious discussion to find out their motivations and even assign them readings to test their aptitude.

When I first switched fields, many colleagues did not believe that I was serious. They thought that I was abandoning science. It was only after I published my first piece of work as a science historian that my colleagues thought that I was committed to and competent in my new field. There will be sceptics. Do not feel demoralized or peer pressured by them. Instead, use your productivity to convince them.

A science historian can be trained classically in the humanities or, like myself, have trained first as a scientist. If I went back in time, I would still choose to do a PhD in science. That training helped me to relate better to scientific logic and to interpret ancient mathematics texts easily. This has helped me tremendously in my work as a science historian and it exemplifies the value of interdisciplinary training.

Nature 623, 211-213 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03337-3

These interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

This story originally appeared on: Nature - Author:Andy Tay