Neuroendocrinology Letters 2001; 22:219–221
pii: NEL220401E03

Gue st Edi t ori a l

Trans-disciplinarity
Hideaki Koizumi
Correspondence to: Prof. Hideaki Koizumi, Dr.Sc.
Faculty of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo,
Senior Chief Scientist, Advanced Research Laboratory,
Hitachi Ltd., Hatoyama, Saitama, 350-0395 Japan.
E-MAIL hkoizumi@harl.hitachi.co.jp
I. Introduction
Over the past two centuries, human culture has been split into two categories, science and technology, and the humanities and arts. Furthermore, science and technology have been minutely divided into clearly specified disciplines. Thus, it has become
hard to understand other disciplines at a professional level because of the intellectual
walls between disciplines. The maturity of science and technology, however, has madeit increasingly difficult to obtain new findings and breakthroughs only within one’sspecialized discipline. New findings and technical breakthroughs are often accomplished only by bridging the gap between completely different disciplines, and thishas been true for many years. For example, Newton’s system of classic dynamics
was created by combining the concepts explaining the motion of astronomical objects
and the falling of an object, traditionally said to be an apple, to the ground. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was an analogy of the competition in a free market
described by Adam Smith. Atomism and reductionism originally came from the projection of the hierarchical structure of human language to nature by Democritos.
Although many scientists and scholars have recognized the importance of a multidisciplinary approach, it is still very difficult to transcend the borders of disciplines
in practice. Such conceptual transitions have generally been made by people now
considered geniuses. Current inter- or multi-disciplinary research organizations are
not powerful enough to overcome the walls between disciplines, and inter- or multidisciplinary research organizations often have not functioned as well as expected
because they have been based upon only a bundle of closely, or sometimes not soclosely, related disciplines. The author believes that rather than a static concept, adynamic concept is needed to overcome this difficulty, and to bridge and fuse disciplines to enable the evolution of new comprehensive fields, e.g., mind-brain science,
environmental science and educational science.
Reprinted from:
H. Koizumi, ed., “Search for Foundations of Science & Technology in the 21st Century; The Transdisciplinary Symposium on the Frontier of Mind-Brain Science and Its Practical Applications (II), Hitachi,
Ltd, Tokyo (2000).
Neuroendocrinology Letters ISSN 0172–780X Copyright © 2001 Neuroendocrinology Letters
Photo: Lili Maas ©

219

Hideaki Koizumi: Trans-disciplinarity

II. The history of our divided culture andits unification
In ancient Greece, disciplines were not so strictly
categorized, and the great minds of that age moved
easily between various fields of thought. Pythagorians (6 century BC), for example, simultaneously studied philosophy, mathematics, music, and religion. In
this age, the words “symmetria” and “asymmetria”
appeared to described the concept of divisible versus
indivisible, for example, that the ratio of the diagonal
versus the side in a square was not an integer. Aristotle (BC 384 – BC 322), and other Grecian scholars
studied both nature and humanity as natural philosophy. This tendency continued after Rome conquered
Greece, and De Rerum Natura by Titus Lucretius
Carus (ca BC 94 – BC 55) is a typical example of this.
However, a division soon appeared between what isnow considered the natural sciences and the humanities during the age of Imperial Rome. This divisionpersisted in western culture, but was much less apparent in eastern cultures.
During the Renaissance, though, Leonardo daVinci (1452–1519) and many others, transcended thisdivision between science and the humanities. Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832) also achieved this,having written both Faust and The Theory of Color.
Interestingly, Goethe was opposed to specialists in science, who were starting to appear at the beginning of
our modern industrial age.
In the modern age, which has been heavily influenced by western philosophies, the scientific way of
thinking divided culture very precisely due to theinfluence of reductionism. The original meaning of“sci-” in the word “science” means “dividing”. Rene
Descartes (1596–1650) discussed the equal importance of analysis and synthesis in his Discours de laMethode. However, many people have recognized theimportance of only analysis because of its great contribution to the progress of science and technology.
Now the value of synthesis, though long neglected,
is considered increasingly important, even in scienceand technology. The ability to take a trans-disciplinary
approach to comprehensive disciplines, such as mindbrain science, environmental science and educational
science will be essential in the 21st and later centuries.

underdeveloped niche academic fields that slightly
overlap well-established disciplines. New comprehensive fields, however, such as mind-brain science, environmental science as well as educational science,cannot be looked upon as a mere bundle or a simple
combination of many related disciplines. Such fields
apply the essence of knowledge and philosophy takenfrom many related disciplines to form their own conceptual structure, a structure that may transcend theborders of many natural sciences, social sciences, andeven the humanities. The concepts of inter-disciplinary or multi-disciplinary are situated on a two-dimensional plane, but the trans-disciplinary concept occupies a three-dimensional space as shown in Fig. 1(b).
The trans-disciplinary concept exists at a higher hierarchical level produced by the linkage of several different disciplines at the lower hierarchical level. Transdisciplinarity includes the concept of bridging andfusion between completely different disciplines.
Each discipline evolves by itself in terms of a conventional methodology and research organizations.
However, some driving force is needed to bridge andfuse disciplines and propel the evolution of a new comprehensive discipline that will require new methodologies and new research organizations. When collaborations occur within the multi-disciplinary plane, thecomprehensive discipline only evolves at the rate of
the evolution of each component discipline. A simple
combination of multiple disciplines is not enoughto drive the trans-disciplinary vector in Fig. 1(b) inthe direction perpendicular to the multi-disciplinary
plane, which is the direction that a new comprehensive discipline will evolve in. There have been anumber of experimental trials and proposals concerning multi-disciplinary research and development, butthese have been somewhat disappointing because thedriving force perpendicular to the multi-disciplinary
plane was inadequate. Therefore, we need to create
a new methodology and new organizations, including
a common language that makes it possible to transcend the borders separating disciplines. The author
has proposed that “analytical science” (or analytics) is
capable of acting as a possible driving force that canlead to a transcending of disciplines. This is a generalized concept and methodology that can be sharedacross disciplines [3–4].
Acknowledgment

III. The concept of trans-disciplinarity
Figures 1(a) and (b) show the difference between
the concepts of inter- or multi-disciplinarity andtrans-disciplinarity[1–2]. We began to use the term
multi-disciplinary instead of inter-disciplinary in theearly 1990s to indicate the comprehensive natureof this field, and because it is very different from220

The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to Professor Emma Rothschild and Professor
Martin Rees of King’s College and Professor Amartya
Sen of Trinity college of the University of Cambridge
for the invaluable opportunities they provided tolearn about the trans-disciplinarity of the college,and Professor Britton Chance of the University ofHideaki Koizumi: Trans-disciplinarity

Discipline 1

Discipline 2

Discipline 3

Fig. 1(a)Emergence of a New Field

Trans-disciplinary Vector

Discipline 5Discipline nDiscipline 4

Discipline 1

Fig. 1(b)Discipline 2

Discipline 3

Fig. 1. The difference in the concepts of trans-disciplinarity and inter-disciplinarity (multidisciplinarity). (a) Inter-disciplinarity (Multi-disciplinarity). (b) Trans-disciplinarity.

Pennsylvania for talking to him about the trans-disciplinary research at the Radiation Laboratory of MIT
during World War II. Thanks are also due to Professor George Cowan and Professor David Pines of theSanta Fe Institute for their informative discussion ontrans-disciplinarity. The author also thanks Professor Wayne Oneil and Professor Noam Chomosky ofMIT who encouraged the author to study trans-disciplinarity.

REFERENCES
1 H. Koizumi, “A Practical Approach towards Trans-disiciplinary
Studies for the 21st Century”, J. Seizon and Life Sci., 9, 5–24
(1999).
2 H. Koizumi, “A Trans-disciplinary Approach through Analytical Science: Towards Global Sustainability and Human Wellbeing”, The Trans-disciplinary Forum on Science and Technology for the Global Environment: Environmental Measurementand Analysis, H. Koizumi, Ed., JST, 3–10 (1996).
3 H. Koizumi, “Analytical Science as a New Paradigm of AnalyticalMethodology”, J. Seizon and Life Sci., 5, 393–407 (1994).
4 H. Koizumi, “From Zeeman Atomic Absorption to Magnetic
Resonance Imaging: An Approach towards Analytical Science,Anal. Sci., 7S, 565–570 (1991).

Neuroendocrinology Letters ISSN 0172–780X Copyright © 2001 Neuroendocrinology Letters221