One cook reaches for the salt, just as another adds a handful of herbs. Someone turns up the heat, while someone else insists it should be turned down. Then, halfway through, another decides the recipe needs changing altogether. Everyone has their own idea of what the dish needs, and before long, nobody is quite sure whose recipe they are following.
There is a reason we say that “too many cooks spoil the broth.”
In the kitchen, too many different approaches can end in disaster. In science, however, this might be exactly what a problem needs. A biologist, an engineer, a chemist and a computer scientist can look at the same problem and see something completely different.
And that may be where discovery begins.
Different cooks, different questions
Scientific disciplines do not simply provide different sets of knowledge. They also teach people to look at problems differently. Faced with the same system, a biologist might ask, How does it work? An engineer might wonder, Can we build, improve or redesign it? A computer scientist might ask, Can we model or predict what it will do? A chemist may focus on which molecules could be changed, while a physicist might look for the forces and rules governing a system.
None of these questions is necessarily the “right” one. Each illuminates a different part of the one problem.
Imagine, for example, that human cells behave differently in a plastic dish than they do inside the body. A biologist might investigate whether signals from neighbouring cells are missing. An engineer, however, might question the dish itself: could we build the cells an environment that better resembles the human body? A physicist might ask whether forces, pressure or fluid flow are missing.
The value of interdisciplinary research, then, is not simply I know something you don't. Sometimes, it is, You noticed a question about my problem that I didn´t know to ask (1).
Hearing the problem differently
Hearing offers a striking example of this. Normally, sound vibrations entering the ear move tiny sensory hair cells inside the cochlea. These cells help convert mechanical vibrations into electrical signals that then travel along the auditory nerve to the brain (2). In severe sensorineural hearing loss, these sensory cells can be badly damaged, disrupting the transduction of sound waves to the brain.
Understanding what has gone wrong is one problem. Finding a way around it requires another mode of thinking.
If the auditory nerve is still functional and can transmit information, could the damaged sensory cells be bypassed? Could sound instead be converted into electrical signals and delivered to the auditory system directly?
That idea sits at the heart of the cochlear implant. A microphone picks up sound, which is processed and translated into patterns of electrical stimulation. An array of electrodes inside the cochlea then stimulates the auditory nerve, bypassing much of the function of the damaged hair cells (3).
But making that possible requires more than understanding the biology of the ear. Neuroscience contributes knowledge of how the auditory system processes electrical information. Engineering and signal processing are needed to transform sound into useful stimulation patterns. Audiology and psychology help researchers understand what implant users actually perceive and which sounds matter for communication and quality of life.
Restoring access to sound is therefore not simply an engineering problem or a biological one. Different disciplines define – and solve – different parts of the same problem.
From disease to drug
The same principle can be seen in the search for new medicines.
Imagine that researchers discover a particular protein plays an important role in a disease. Knowing this is useful, but it doesn't automatically translate to an usable drug. Instead, it creates a whole series of new questions – and different disciplines approach each one uniquely.
While biologists investigate the protein’s role in the disease, structural biologists examine its three-dimensional shape to identify potential binding sites for drugs. Chemists use these insights to design and modify molecules that might interfere with the protein’s function. But with far too many possible molecules to make and test them all, computer scientists bring another approach to the table. Computational methods can help predict molecular properties, model interactions and identify promising candidates for laboratory testing (4).
But a prediction on a computer is not medicine. Drug candidates still have to be synthesised, tested against their biological target, examined in cells and other experimental systems, and eventually assessed for safety and efficacy. Results from those experiments can, in turn, inform the next round of computational predictions and chemical modifications.
Each discipline contributes a different approximation of the solution. Together, they can gradually turn an understanding of disease into something much more tangible: a potential treatment.
When too many cooks really do spoil the broth
Of course, putting more scientists around the same table does not automatically produce better science.
Different disciplines have their own jargon, methods and standards of evidence. Even their definition of success can differ (1). An engineer may primarily want to know whether a device works reliably, while a biologist may also want to understand precisely why it works and which molecular mechanisms are responsible.
There are practical problems too. Interdisciplinary projects may require specialised equipment spread across different laboratories, additional funding, different types of data and more people to coordinate (1).
In other words, a bigger research kitchen can be harder to run.
Yet the same differences that make collaboration difficult can also make it valuable. Explaining an idea to someone outside your field forces you to make assumptions explicit. A seemingly simple question can expose a blind spot. And where one discipline reaches the limits of its methods, another may offer an entirely different route forward.
Let them cook
Perhaps too many cooks really can spoil the broth, especially when nobody agrees on what they are cooking. Interdisciplinary research works not because more people automatically produce better answers, but because different perspectives can reveal different parts of the same problem.
Science, after all, is not made by following a single recipe. Progress can begin when someone brings an unfamiliar ingredient, questions the instructions or suggests making something entirely different.
The research kitchen may be noisier, messier and harder to coordinate when biologists, engineers, chemists and computer scientists gather around the same problem. But it also gains new questions, new tools and new possibilities.
So don´t send the cooks away. Let them cook.
References
1. Vladova G, Haase J, Friesike S. Why, with whom, and how to conduct interdisciplinary research? A review from a researcher’s perspective. Science and Public Policy. 2025;52(2):165-80.
2. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. How Do We Hear? Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 2022 [Available from: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/how-do-we-hear.
3. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Cochlear Implants Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 2024 [Available from: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/cochlear-implants.
4. Sadybekov AV, Katritch V. Computational approaches streamlining drug discovery. Nature. 2023;616(7958):673-85.
Back to
Issue 11
