Last year, two teams of Stanford researchers—led by professors Ron Davis and Richard Myers—joined 18 other teams in announcing results of an international collaboration analyzing the human genome sequence. That a community of scientists was able to read the sequence of 3 billion DNA units in a little more than 10 years was a momentous achievement. In fact, the international team beat its own schedule. Researchers have quickly begun to exploit the sequence, aided significantly by DNA microarray technology invented by a Stanford research team led by Professor Patrick Brown.
The sequencing of the human genome is just one example of the progress that is possible when researchers from multiple disciplines collaborate. What are the challenges Stanford and other universities face in strengthening such interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary scholarship given a system that, historically, has been driven by the discipline-based structure of schools and departments? To be sure, in recent years, the system has evolved at Stanford. Interdisciplinary programs have been introduced, as have independent centers with a multidisciplinary focus, such as the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity. So it is reasonable to ask: why do we need to strengthen multidisciplinary teaching and research?
The primary reason is quite simple: the scope and complexity of contemporary social and scientific challenges have grown significantly. Understanding these problems and providing practical solutions require researchers from multiple disciplines to work together. Finding cures for diseases ravaging entire continents, addressing the increasingly scarce reserves of natural resources and dealing with seemingly insoluble international security challenges are problems that transcend the boundaries of individual disciplines.
The Human Genome Project is just one example. Comparative international studies call for a broad understanding of a nation’s history and sociocultural traditions in concert with the analysis of political, legal and economic structures. The management of greenhouse gases, a problem of increasing importance, requires knowledge of plant biology, ecology, environmental engineering, geosciences, law, economics and public policy. Likewise, if advances in fundamental biomedical research are to lead to cost-effective improvements in health care, collaboration among the basic and applied sciences and clinical medicine will be necessary.
Multidisciplinary programs provide substantial benefits to the University as well. Scholars who are educated across disciplinary boundaries will bring broader perspectives to their research and teaching. New courses will be developed that incorporate materials from different disciplines. This mixing of disciplines can lead to a sustained effort that outlives the initial collaboration and may result in new degree programs.
Stanford is well-positioned to pursue such initiatives for several reasons. First, we have always encouraged collaboration across departmental and school boundaries. Second, we combine excellence and breadth, which allows the creation of teams of outstanding scholars who span a range of disciplines. Third, we have geographical proximity: our schools and centers are clustered on a single campus, encouraging formal and informal collaborations.
These fundamental advantages have supported a number of recent multidisciplinary ventures. Three schools—Medicine, Engineering, and Humanities and Sciences—have collaborated in the biosciences and bioengineering in the project informally known as Bio-X. The Schools of Medicine and Engineering are jointly building a new bioengineering department and other programs.
Environmental issues, such as the efficient use of natural resources or the environmentally sensitive production of energy, provide other opportunities for collaboration. In the fall of 2001, several schools worked together to establish the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Environment and Resources to provide opportunities for students interested in these areas.
Of course, the pursuit of any innovative initiative is accompanied by some risk. Engaging in cross-departmental and cross-school teaching and research will require openness to organizational and cultural change. Another possible risk is that the increase in multidisciplinary activities may lead to weakening in the disciplines. I do not subscribe to the zero-sum theory that the pursuit of new collaborative initiatives necessarily results in the sacrifice of disciplinary excellence. Instead, multidisciplinary projects can and should be springboards for fundamental disciplinary advances.
The cost of intellectual renewal is a willingness to be bold and take risks. We have outstanding faculty and students. The leadership within the schools and departments is strong. Our pioneering spirit is alive and well. I am confident that Stanford will help advance the new paradigm and, as so often has been the case in the past, become a leader in this increasingly important frontier of higher education.
