Interdisciplinarity and Paradigm Shift of Modern Science

—A Speech Given at the First National Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies Conference and Joint Meeting of Academies for Advanced Interdisciplinary Research

HAN Qide

(Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Peking University, Beijing 100871)

Dear fellows:

I'm very glad to participate in the First National Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies Conference and Joint Meeting of Academies for Advanced Interdisciplinary Research, a real academic community. In the morning, I attended the Tsinghua Symposium, so I was not here. A friend from Tsinghua University jokingly said, “Tsinghua was good at doing before, and now can speak, too.” I'm from Peking University, so I was quite honored to attend that symposium at the next-door university and get a big round of applause from the audience there.

About the author: Han Qide, male, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Honorary Chairman of China Association for Science and Technology.

In the afternoon, I listened to several academicians' reports, which have many implications. I knew that in the morning, the leaders talked about macro strategic arrangements for interdisciplinary science and specific work plans and representatives from Peking University, Tsinghua University, Southern University of Science and Technology, and Nanjing University introduced their interdisciplinary programs. In the afternoon, several academicians showed us their interdisciplinary research results. Although I didn't quite understand some of what they've said, I probably knew their research ideas and results.

Today, I'll first briefly tell you my understanding of interdisciplinary science. Since you might have reached a consensus, I'll try to keep it short.

In the early years of scientific development, people just wanted to know and pursue the simplicity of nature, like looking upon the stars, without discipline presetting. In ancient Greece, people desired to know the planet where they were living, and then wanted to know what their bodies looked like.

Isaac Newton, the founder of modern science, made epoch-making contributions to various fields such as mathematics, mechanics, optics, and astronomy. But in his days, due to the lack of a clear discipline classification of science, his researches were classified into the category of natural philosophy. He wrote a classical book of mechanics—The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Even in the mid-nineteenth century, major scientific findings like Joule's Law were just published in the Philosophical Magazine, UK. With the increasing researches and research results, the division of labor became more and more detailed. Initially, scholars had their own research emphasis. For example, some focused on this topic, while others focused on that topic. Then, scholars engaging in similar researches started to have more exchanges and gradually formed an academic community, where their common research contents gradually formed a discipline. But the exploration for a law was often not limited to a group of people, though some of them might do well in deeply digging in a specific direction. To solve bigger problems, people from different disciplines had to work together. That's always the case in scientific development.

Particularly, since the 18th century, great progress has been made in scientific development. The rapid expansion of research content has resulted in the continuous breakdown of disciplines. Meanwhile, there have been more and more scientific problems that could not be solved with the knowledge of a single discipline, and the boundaries between disciplines have been constantly broken and integrated. In the past two centuries, there has been some tension between the differentiation and integration of disciplines. For example, the term“biology” came into being until 1800. At that time, this term only included geology (paleobiology) , taxonomy, zoology, and botany. The emergence of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has promoted the formation of genetics, embryology and biostatistics. Later, physical sciences were continuously integrated with biology, which resulted in biochemistry, biophysics, cytobiology, molecular biology, etc. Currently, life science is used to represent the term “biology” under almost all circumstances. Life science is closely linked to medicine. . . This is a continuous and dynamic process of differentiation and integration.

Disciplines have been crossed and integrated based on the exploration of major scientific problems. In fact, the classification of disciplines depends on the researched problems. A discipline is gradually formed in the problem-solving or law exploration process. Therefore, if a problem cannot be solved with the existing disciplinary knowledge and relevant research and technical conditions have been met, a new discipline will emerge of course. For interdisciplinary science, therefore, it is a matter of time.

We've realized such a law to some extent. In practice, interdisciplinary action is problem-oriented and not affected by any artificial boundary. Don't be too anxious; otherwise, you just make rice shoots grow by pulling them up. Don't imitate blindly or rush up in a crowd. We straightly work hard to solve a problem, which will make disciplines cross naturally and healthily.

The principal discipline is one of the most important foundations for the crossing of multiple disciplines. The best scholars or specially-talented scholars in the principal discipline are required to solve some major problems and gradually make disciplines crossed. It is not urgent to define a boundary first.

The crossing of disciplines may be initiated in either top-down or bottom-up form. The former means efforts to identify major problems to be solved and organize overall research on relevant disciplines; and the latter means efforts to enable the advanced scholars or specially-talented scholars in some disciplines to seek and work with partners to solve interdisciplinary scientific problems.

Organizing interdisciplinary research inevitably involves peer review. Why and how are disciplines crossed? Who does well in this aspect? Who is supported, commended, or eliminated from that process? Peer review is required to solve all of those problems. It is particularly difficult to obtain peer review for the crossed disciplines, which requires some special actions, such as the selection of evaluation experts, the evaluation process, more complaint opportunities and channels, and the training for evaluation experts. National Natural Science Foundation of China is exploring these areas, and the Ministry of Science Technology, the Ministry of Education, and other government sectors are taking measures accordingly. In the future, there will be more and more significant interdisciplinary science&technology projects. Hence, it is exigent to reform and improve the interdisciplinary peer review mechanism and system.

Of course, the soil of scientific spirit and culture is also one of the most important foundations for the crossing of disciplines. It is particularly rare in our country. In order to establish crossed disciplines, I think, more efforts shall be made to foster a good academic atmosphere and develop an academic culture and scientific culture. Without any scientific spirit, thought and method, we can just organize some interdisciplinary projects technologically and cannot reach a higher level.

Of course, the government's attention is needed, too. So far, the crossed disciplines have been gradually recognized and emphasized. Nevertheless, we need to work harder to obtain financial support and relevant policies from the government and make relevant projects approved as soon as possible.

All the above are briefly summarized, due to the existing consensuses.

Today, I mainly raised two questions for discussion: First, shall we take the development of biomedicine as the most important strategic mission? Second, is the paradigm shift in modern science at a critical stage now?

Now, biomedicine is the most popular discipline. Countries are competing to include its development into the list of their strategic priorities. Obviously, China is doing so too. The reports delivered at the conference are almost about biomedicine. Many colleges, universities and scientific research institutions attach greater and greater importance to biomedical research. I visited Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences yesterday afternoon. They've made scientific arrangements in six major aspects. Now, they start to abandon two of them (i. e. information and robot) . The remaining four all belong to the field of biomedicine. Medicine and life science account for nearly half of the total expenditure of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. According to relevant documents, biomedicine is one of the priorities in the crossing of disciplines. I think this is a problem worth probing into. Shall biomedicine be deemed as one of the priorities in scientific and technological development? And shall it be the focus of the crossing of disciplines? This is true in the United States. Shall we do so, too?

I'll tell you what I'm thinking about. Perhaps I'm not right. The following is for reference only. As far as demand is concerned, that should not be like this. China is a developing country that has not completed industrial modernization, is unable to independently operate many high-end links in manufacturing, and has too huge physical, scientific and technological needs to meet! It can be said that life is the most important. As people's living standard is improving, they are more concerned about their health and give a priority to biomedicine. But I don't think so. It's indefensible in practice. Why? In either history or reality, primary determinants of human health don't include medicine, but economic and social development, the improvement of material living conditions, the improvement of lifestyle, and fair educational and social services. The United States invests a lot in medicine and health and its biomedicine is developed. But in the rankings of main public health indicators, the Unites States stands between the 30th and 40th places all over the world. With the advancement of magnetic resonance technology, doctors can see human body structures more and more clearly and identify smaller and smaller niduses, so that more people can receive operations as soon as possible. However, this has very little influence on life expectancy per capita. It's argued that medical consumption demands and market shares are increasing rapidly all over the world, and the pharmaceutical industry generates great economic benefits and is a pillar industry in developed countries, so it is necessary to attach greater importance to biomedicine research. But this is not good enough, too. China has a weak foundation, a large population, and a per capita income far lower than that of developed countries. For ordinary people, who take an overwhelming majority of the population in China, the most immediate issue is the improvement of basic necessities and educational level. It is also the most important path for the improvement of general public health. Even in developed countries, people should not mainly rely on industries to promote the development of healthcare. The current blind and overheated development of the pharmaceutical industry is seemingly linked to the pursuit of interest by the capital investors behind it.

Therefore, we shall fully focus on the development of biomedicine. But whether our country needs to put biomedicine ahead of material science is to be further deliberated.

The second question is about the scientific paradigm shift. The Scientific Revolution started in the 16th century and brought forth modern science. Based on ancient Greek science, modern science has been expanded with a few new elements: Firstly, empirical evidence is required, and conclusions should be evidenced by relevant experiments. Secondly, certainty is required, and efforts should be made to conduct accurate and quantitative determination and summarize universal rules with simple mathematical formulas. Thirdly, it is necessary to understand the mechanism and causal relationship. All these are paradigms for modern science. With scientific development, however, the paradigms have gradually been broken. Many uncertainties have been discovered through quantum science research. It is possible to find new laws through a combination of big data and AI technology, without any restored and broken mechanism and causal relationship. Dark matter cannot be seen directly. No structural foundation has been found for many functions of the human body. Many changes completely occurred on a random basis and without any regular rule. With the completion of the Human Genome Project and the advancements of transcriptome, proteome, and metabolome, etc. , assumption-driven experiment research is changing into data-driven research. Even now, it's found through research that some rules cannot be verified by an experimental approach. Randomized control and double-blind observation are often impossible in clinical researches. We start to explore the so-called “true world” research method, etc. All the above reveal that modern scientific paradigms resulting from the Scientific Revolution and developing over the last few hundred years are likely to shift dramatically at the current stage of the development of scientific research.

The two questions are linked to some extent here. Living beings, especially mankind, is the most typical and extremely complex system. It is difficult to further and deeply reveal its rules by using traditional scientific paradigms. As such, we have to develop new research paradigms. Biomedicine can be deemed as a “mother” of new scientific paradigms. Biomedicine has gradually become a focus of cutting-edge research in different disciplines, implying the current tendency of scientific paradigm shift. Of course, biomedicine also becomes a center where various disciplines are crossed.

Various cutting-edge discipline researches focus on biology and give rise to new scientific paradigms, which will finally promote the development of biomedicine, fundamentally change the pattern of science and technology, and benefit all disciplines, including the development of material science and technology. Of course, with its development, biomedicine will directly contribute to human health, and more importantly, it's expected to promote the scientific paradigm shift and overall scientific and technological development and have more fundamental impacts on human health through economic and social development.

It should be noted that the process of human evolution is measured in units of ten thousand years or hundreds of thousands of years. Ten thousand years ago, the Agricultural Revolution occurred; and a hundred years ago, the Industrial Revolution occurred. So far, the human lifestyle has changed fundamentally. But human structure and functions are far from enough to adapt to such a change. This is the root cause of current human disease. Therefore, ultimately, we cannot rely on medicine, but have to improve our lifestyle, so as to solve human health issues.

In summary, I do not oppose attaching importance to biomedicine in the terms of interdisciplinarity. I think that it not only aims to address biomedical issues but also focuses on promoting scientific paradigm shift as a whole. In such a sense, we may have a deeper understanding of the reason why all countries are rushing in such a direction. Then, we'll take an initiative to hold the direction, adjust research focuses in line with actual conditions of our country, and avoid going astray in the lure of capital.

Of course, the scientific paradigm shift will not end in a short period. Original paradigms will continue developing, as a basis for the formation of new paradigms. In the longer run, original and new paradigms will co-exist and undergo a complex process of trade-off.

It is always difficult to predict the future. History is just the record and summary of ancestors by later generations. Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton created modern scientific paradigms, but they had never said and summarized such a paradigm. We cannot predict whether scientific paradigms will be undergoing a thorough shift. But it is necessary to observe the history and reality more and have more findings.

All the above are my superficial views that are incomplete and even may be wrong. Thus, I just raised questions for discussion.

At last, it was just advised to organize a National Joint Meeting of Presidents of Academies for Advanced Interdisciplinary Research. It's a good idea. It will provide an important platform for further cooperation and exchange between interdisciplinary and academic institutions, and meanwhile set up a bridge between the academic community and government sector, and provide advices on national science & technology strategy.

Thank you.