In our era of rapid social and technological increase both specialists and generalists are equally in demand now. Specialists tend to focus on narrow theme or subject whereas generalist's main function is to sum up discrete pieces of information into one whole vision. The meaning of generalists and specialists can be explicitly presented on some examples from science. Scientists of all categories can be described either as specialists or generalists. The latter situation in modern science clearly shows that both of those categories augment each other. For instance, breakthrough human genome investigations of the latter decades, dimensional protein's structure predictions and genome-based research about the evolution of mankind provide the evidence, that success in science is fully dependent on how good collaboration between generalists and specialists is.
First, it is worthwhile to remember one of the most expensive projects on human genome sequencing. It was the whole story about two competing companies. Both wanted to accomplish the human genome sequencing in shorter period of time. As the result, it took many years to get results, finally there was given complete information about sequence of nucleotide bases in concrete human genome. No matter which company won in this competition but the problem was of another contend: the plentiful genome information provides to be a double-edged sword! Scientists had faced the risk never to interpret the collected information. It worth to mention, that genome investigation work was done by specialists. In this case aren't we drawn to declare the work done only by specialists might lack of importance without general revision? Can any society dispense only with specialists and their brilliant work? The answer is no. Therefore, generalists deserve our attention in this essay. In our example generalists had a special role. They did all job about interpreting all genomic information and continue to do it until now.
In the first place, they develop special programming device in order to align different sequences of manifold organisms in order to revile any possible compatibilities and incongruities for finding the loci on DNA with similar sequence and function.
The same way the information about sequence of amino acids of proteins can be collected by specialists and than be backed up by generalists. In molecular biology sequencing work is done primary by specialists and they have another name as experimentations. Other piece of work is done by generalists and while they use primary theoretical methods they call themselves theoretic. But no doubt both groups are complimentary and are crucial for modern science development.
All in all, those two examples provide with information about both existence of generalists and specialists in our time. It is inappropriate to draw a line on the sand between those to groups. Moreover the modern tendency is that both groups relevantly proportional in their amounts. Finally, the very attempt to draw the line between generalists and specialists in by definition improper approach. Both groups build the whole. It can be easily illustrated by presenting the Paradox of Heap. Given a heap of sand with N number of grains of sand we start to remove one grain. And we still left with heap of sand. Continuing to remove one grain after another we will still be left with N minus grains already removed. This way shows that there is no clear line between heap of sand and less-than-a-heap of sand. This example illustrates removal of "overrated" specialists or generalists (if necessary). But the whole system of grains left would continue to stay stable with that amount of grains left. This proves that any system will tend to self-regulation and nothing should be done by artificial removal or addition in those cases.
First, it is worthwhile to remember one of the most expensive projects on human genome sequencing. It was the whole story about two competing companies. Both wanted to accomplish the human genome sequencing in shorter period of time. As the result, it took many years to get results, finally there was given complete information about sequence of nucleotide bases in concrete human genome. No matter which company won in this competition but the problem was of another contend: the plentiful genome information provides to be a double-edged sword! Scientists had faced the risk never to interpret the collected information. It worth to mention, that genome investigation work was done by specialists. In this case aren't we drawn to declare the work done only by specialists might lack of importance without general revision? Can any society dispense only with specialists and their brilliant work? The answer is no. Therefore, generalists deserve our attention in this essay. In our example generalists had a special role. They did all job about interpreting all genomic information and continue to do it until now.
In the first place, they develop special programming device in order to align different sequences of manifold organisms in order to revile any possible compatibilities and incongruities for finding the loci on DNA with similar sequence and function.
The same way the information about sequence of amino acids of proteins can be collected by specialists and than be backed up by generalists. In molecular biology sequencing work is done primary by specialists and they have another name as experimentations. Other piece of work is done by generalists and while they use primary theoretical methods they call themselves theoretic. But no doubt both groups are complimentary and are crucial for modern science development.
All in all, those two examples provide with information about both existence of generalists and specialists in our time. It is inappropriate to draw a line on the sand between those to groups. Moreover the modern tendency is that both groups relevantly proportional in their amounts. Finally, the very attempt to draw the line between generalists and specialists in by definition improper approach. Both groups build the whole. It can be easily illustrated by presenting the Paradox of Heap. Given a heap of sand with N number of grains of sand we start to remove one grain. And we still left with heap of sand. Continuing to remove one grain after another we will still be left with N minus grains already removed. This way shows that there is no clear line between heap of sand and less-than-a-heap of sand. This example illustrates removal of "overrated" specialists or generalists (if necessary). But the whole system of grains left would continue to stay stable with that amount of grains left. This proves that any system will tend to self-regulation and nothing should be done by artificial removal or addition in those cases.