GRE Issue Topic 136

Sample 1:

The claim made in the argument is that a field of study is most benefited when it draws from interdisciplinary knowledge. I am in agreement with this viewpoint and would defend my opinion based on three key points – people have contributed significantly to fields in which they had limited exposure, people working in one field are likely to make mistakes that a person with a fresh perspective can point out, whole new frontiers could be traversed by crossing two different fields of knowledge which would also have a bearing on solving social problems.

Let us take the example of Bill Gates, an entrepreneur par excellence who spent a substantial portion of his life in the IT industry. Post his voluntary retirement he decided to dedicate his life to philanthropic causes primarily in the area of health, a field in which he had little exposure or theoretical grounding. But despite what might popularly be considered a ‘handicap’, or perhaps because of it, the foundation has been able to make significant contribution to the improvement of health initiatives in third world countries. Bill Gates drew heavily from this experience as a businessman in creating a new field, that of philanthrocapitalism, and has been able to alleviate some of the ills that dogged the philanthropic community – scalability, accountability, evaluating success and raising funds. It was his perspective as an outsider that enabled him to view the field afresh, to challenge the status quo and look for solutions to problems that ailed the field.

When one spends a majority of their time working on the same thing, it often becomes a blind spot and even established experts are unable to subvert this problem. However when fresh ways of thinking and knowledge from other fields in imbibed, the problem reveals itself and is followed by a solution that enriches the field more than before. An example of this is the problem confounding the scientific community with regards to the molecular structure on an enzyme in a breed of monkeys that is known to cut proteins from an AIDS like virus. The puzzle when presented to lay people as an online game was cracked in less than 10 days!

Another defense for the importance of cross disciplinary knowledge is that new fields of study could be created at the hybrid intersection of existing fields. Studies on extra terrestrial life forms are one such example which necessarily require an understanding of both astronomy and biology. The field would be able to make little headway in the absence of knowledge of even one of these areas. Learnings from this field of study could have important implications for humanity and have the potential to attenuate our problems or compound them. But in either case an absence of knowledge would be far more harmful.

Opponents however argue that independent fields of study are likely to advance faster, when an attempt is not being made to solve all problems at one go. They argue that a possible solution is not presented until it satisfies the beliefs of experts of all the fields, which could be a daunting task. For instance the evolutionary science is severely restricted because it contradicts religious sentiments and beliefs. This behavior however is akin to ‘The Ostrich myth’ and one needs to realize that ignoring a problem would not make the problem go away.

In conclusion there is much to be gained when different fields of knowledge intersect and work together to solve problems. Significant gains are likely when an esoteric view is adopted.