Recommended Free Tools
In a 2008 interview, newly appointed BBSRC chief executive Douglas Kell argued that science funding should make interdisciplinary work easier without sacrificing fundamental research. He urged researchers to cross disciplinary boundaries, while warning that projects applying one field to another must contribute to the problem being addressed—not merely bring excellent techniques from their home discipline.
Why Kell wanted researchers to cross disciplinary boundaries
Richard Van Noorden’s 27 November 2008 interview in Chemistry World was published as Kell began a four-year appointment as chief executive of the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). At the time, he was also described as the former director of the Manchester Centre for Integrative Systems Biology and said he expected to continue working one day a week at the Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre. These are details of his 2008 roles, not a statement of his present positions.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Kell’s central argument was that multidisciplinary work can address problems that projects confined to a single discipline cannot. He said, “People who don’t want to get out more will need to be worried. The whole trend in science is to do multi- and interdisciplinary types of activity, which allows you to attack problems that mono-disciplinary projects don’t.”
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How BBSRC was changing its review structure
The interview described BBSRC replacing seven specialist committees with four broader committees, intended to support work across disciplines. Kell said chemists could apply across committees, but that a proposal bringing chemistry to a biological question needed to make a biological contribution as well as demonstrate strong chemistry.
#1 Best Overall
His practical example was DNA sequencing associated with Fred Sanger: chemistry could enable a biological advance. The point was not that a chemist should abandon disciplinary expertise, but that the project should use that expertise to answer a problem beyond chemistry alone.
“Chemists can apply anywhere, it doesn’t matter which. The secret for good chemists [looking for interdisciplinary funding] is to use the skills they’ve got – but if they come to solve biological problems they’ve got to do something that isn’t just great chemistry.”
Why policy intent did not guarantee an easy application
Kell acknowledged a gap between a funder’s intention to support interdisciplinary projects and researchers’ experience of applying. The interview cited an RSC survey in which many UK scientists working at the chemistry-biology interface believed research councils did not adequately support interdisciplinary work. Van Noorden’s account suggested this might reflect a communication problem between funders and applicants, rather than a simple absence of opportunities.
The interview does not give the survey’s sample size, percentage results, or underlying dataset. It therefore supports the existence of a reported concern, not a precise estimate of how widespread it was or whether the same concern applies to funding today.
Rank #3
Why systems biology also raised a data problem
Kell identified systems biology and metabolomics as areas needing support, and emphasized computational biology as a way to interpret and store growing volumes of scientific data. He discussed semantic-web approaches and metadata in papers as possible means of helping computers connect findings across research. Examples he mentioned at the time included the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Project Prospect and structured digital abstracts introduced by FEBS Letters; the interview does not establish their current status.
To convey the scale of publication volume he had in mind, Kell said in 2008: “Scientific peer reviewed papers are coming out in Medline at the rate of two per minute. The total number of peer reviewed papers coming out in the world is five per minute.” These are figures attributed to Kell in that historical interview, not current publication rates or independently verified counts.
Rank #4
How fundamental and applied research could share a portfolio
The interview also addressed BBSRC’s “grand challenges,” which were intended to increase economic impact and align funded work with areas supported by organizations such as the Technology Strategy Board. Kell rejected the idea that this required every project to be immediately directed toward an application. He argued that long-term fundamental research and applied projects could coexist in a mixed portfolio, with proposals judged on scientific excellence.
“We’ve got where we are by a combination of long-term fundamental research which doesn’t necessarily have an objective – but with an eye to the main chance – combined with more applied things that do. I absolutely see no contrast between responsive mode or blue skies science and making economic impact. We will have a mixed portfolio and it will be funded on the basis of scientific excellence.”
Kell also said that, in 2008, 25 per cent of BBSRC funding went to departments that did not have “biology or life sciences” in their name. That figure is his statement in the interview; it should not be read as a current funding share.
What this interview can—and cannot—tell readers now
The interview offers a useful account of one research leader’s case for interdisciplinary funding: preserve specialist expertise, make review structures more accommodating, and require cross-disciplinary projects to address the full problem. It also captures his argument that economic impact need not displace blue-skies science. Its committee structure, funding figure, publication rates, appointment details, and publishing examples are all reported in a 2008 context; the interview does not verify whether they remain true today.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
