I have always disliked the phrase “Jack of all trades, master of none.” It is generally used to dismiss people whose interests and experiences span multiple fields, implying that breadth necessarily comes at the expense of depth.
History suggests otherwise.
In 1592, Robert Greene famously dismissed William Shakespeare as an “absolute Johannes Factotum,” essentially accusing him of being a jack-of-all-trades and implying that such breadth came at the expense of genuine expertise. Shakespeare was an actor, playwright, poet, and writer who refused to remain confined to a single role or literary form. History ultimately rendered a rather different judgment of his abilities.
This intellectual breadth was characteristic of many of the people we now associate with transformative periods of discovery. Leonardo da Vinci moved freely between art, anatomy, mechanics, engineering, and natural science. Copernicus worked in astronomy, mathematics, medicine, economics, and government. Newton made foundational contributions to mathematics, mechanics, optics, and astronomy while also pursuing chemistry, theology, and other subjects. Benjamin Franklin was simultaneously a scientist, inventor, writer, publisher, diplomat, and statesman. Thomas Edison carried this same breadth into the industrial age, working across electrical power, sound recording, motion pictures, batteries, materials, communications, and manufacturing while helping pioneer the modern research laboratory itself. The same tendency can be seen in contemporary technology. Elon Musk's ventures span electric vehicles, energy storage, reusable rockets, satellite communications, artificial intelligence, tunneling, and brain-computer interfaces. Regardless of the era, the recurring theme is the same: ideas and approaches developed in one field can create unexpected opportunities in another.
Across centuries, many of the people we remember for changing how we understand or interact with the world, from Leonardo and Newton to Edison and even contemporary figures such as Elon Musk, have been remarkably difficult to place into a single disciplinary box. These people were not successful despite the breadth of their interests. I would argue that, at least in part, they were successful because of it.
Deep expertise is essential to science, but breadth creates connections. Exposure to different fields provides new ways of looking at familiar problems. A technique developed for one application may solve a problem in another. An observation in one discipline can suggest an experiment in a completely different one. By drawing from a larger collection of ideas, experiences, and methods, scientists can recognize opportunities that might remain invisible from within the boundaries of a single specialization.
Our laboratory strives to cultivate this mentality.
Our research crosses boundaries between physics, materials science, and engineering; between functional and structural materials; between synthesis and characterization; and between fundamental discovery and technological application. We work on problems spanning energy, information, sensing, medicine, and defense. Some projects investigate the fundamental behavior of magnetic or quantum materials. Others develop new structural alloys, devices, sensors, manufacturing approaches, or experimental techniques.
The diversity is intentional.
A capability developed for one project frequently becomes a tool for another. A material originally created for one application may reveal an unexpected property useful somewhere else. Problems encountered by our collaborators introduce us to new science, while the techniques and perspectives we bring can open new directions for them.
For this reason, collaboration is central to how we work. We want to contribute our expertise to problems outside our immediate field, but we also want to learn from those problems. Every collaboration expands the collection of tools, concepts, and experiences available to the group.
This philosophy is equally important in the training of our students. We want them to develop genuine depth and expertise, but we also want them to remain intellectually adventurous. A scientist should be capable of mastering a problem without becoming confined by it.
The Renaissance is remembered as a period in which boundaries between disciplines were unusually permeable and curiosity was allowed to range widely. We try to bring some of that same mentality to modern science.
We call it Renaissance Science.