I think this argument, while true in some cases, is overly dismissive in general. The whole imperative to "stay in your lane" is one of the most destructive dev

I think this argument, while true in some cases, is overly dismissive in general. The whole imperative to "stay in your lane" is one of the most destructive developments in modern science. In biology, for example, the field of synthetic biology was initiated by two physicists: Michael Elowitz and James Collins. It has since illuminated foundational biological ideas about the nature and purpose of stochasticity and dynamics of gene expression, perspectives that biolgists wouldn't have captured because they aren't used to thinking about things stochastically or dynamically. I actually think there CAN be cross talk back from biology: physicists, in general, have terrible experimental instincts compared to biologists. There's a huge stagnation in physics because we've chosen maximally difficult experimental means to prove small things over long time scales. Any biologist could tell you that you want to pick simple, cheap experiments that will be resolved over a short time period. Only recently are particle physicists tuning into this perspective, with the recent move to emphasize tabletop experiments. But no, apparently we should all stay in our lanes and respect experts in different fields to know everything. It's DESTRUCTIVE and DISGUSTING.