> That's bad, because the most interesting breakthroughs came from cross-disciplinary work. True, but I think the signal-to-noise ratio is also exceptionally l

> That's bad, because the most interesting breakthroughs came from cross-disciplinary work. True, but I think the signal-to-noise ratio is also exceptionally low. The most amazing breakthroughs come from insights that span disciplines, but it's also easy to think you have an insight when what you really have is a mistake. I'm not weighing in on this one in particular, but as a general principle I think caution is appropriate in cases like this.