I recently read Sean Eddy's '"Antedisciplinary" Science' in PLoS Computational Biology. In it, he quotes:

"I don't think of interdisciplinary teams combining existing skills to solve a defined problem--I think of single interdisciplinary people inventing new ways to look at the world."

I can't help but think of the many times I've heard someone point out that "the jack of all trades is master of none". It's one of my favorite quotes as it's mostly left as is but occasionally someone will recite a longer version: "The jack of all trades is master of none...but is oftentimes better than master of one." The debate over whether it's better to be a specialist or a generalist is a long standing one, and both sides have their merits.

The generalist, intuitively, is more capable at adapting to dynamic situations and more importantly is able to communicate between different groups of specialists. This article looks at the debate between generalists/specialists from the perspective of job retention and pay. In summary, the specialist is recognized with higher pay but runs the risk of being eliminated during times of economic duress. The generalist has higher stress and may be pushed into a managerial position (which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on ones temperament).

Here are five great points on why being a generalist is preferable. It's a little subjective (to me, at least) but the overarching theme is that like a shark, a person apt to be a generalist needs to keep moving. They are able to become a "good enough expert" in any field within a year, the intellectual stimulation of entering new fields ever year avoids boredom, and that generalists who identify the connections between specialized fields end up running the show!

In the end, with scientific research being extremely dynamic and dependent on cross-talk between ideas of different fields and disciplines, I can relate to Eddy's message that generalists will have the upper hand for some time to come.

Link to Eddy's article in PLoS: Link