When We Talk About Cross-Disciplinary Talent Teams, What Are We Really Talking About?

During interviews, Orange Bureau frequently heard teams say, “We need interdisciplinary talent,” or introduce themselves by stating, “We are a team of interdisciplinary professionals.”

This is inevitable. With the overall advancement of social and technological progress, innovation in the medical field is no longer a matter of isolated exploration within a single discipline, but rather the result of multidisciplinary integration; the importance of interdisciplinary talent is self-evident. However, cultivating individuals who master two or more “widely disparate” skills requires substantial investment of time and energy. Therefore,For many researchers with a medical background who seek to translate their findings into practical applications, partners are particularly critical.

In an interview with the “Top 100 Innovators,” Chengguo Ju met a clinician.He has a strong interest in the commercialization of research outcomes, but his lack of engineering knowledge has made it difficult to bring these results to practical application.He tried various approaches to connect with engineering teams, only to discover that barriers also exist in communication between clinicians and engineers. He shared his observations and experiences from his search for an “engineering partner” with Orange Fruit Bureau. The following is his personal account.

Let me start with my regret: why I did not become a professional with interdisciplinary capabilities.

Since 2016, China has strongly supported the development of interdisciplinary disciplines at the university level, aiming to cultivate innovative talents with interdisciplinary professional capabilities and vision. After years of preparation by major universities, these related programs began to take shape and started enrolling students in 2020.

From an age perspective, the relevant majors were not offered during my time as a student. Furthermore, from the standpoint of disciplinary focus, interdisciplinary programs that are established may not necessarily fully meet market demands. The primary reason for this discrepancy lies in the differing objectives between universities’ establishment of academic programs and the actual needs of the market.

A senior official from the academic affairs office of a university explained this phenomenon:“Universities design their academic programs based on disciplinary development, but market demand evolves with the trend.”

In terms of timing, the establishment of interdisciplinary majors by universities also lags behind market demand. Setting up a new major requires approval from colleges, universities, and even educational authorities at various levels, as well as the cultivation or recruitment of faculty in relevant fields and the design of corresponding teaching plans. Completing all preparations typically takes about 2–3 years. Furthermore, it takes an additional 4–5 years of exploration for a discipline to fully develop. In summary, developing a new discipline, from initial preparation to mature operation, requires at least 10 years.

Perhaps for academia, a decade is not a particularly long span. However, for the industry, ten years can encompass the entire lifecycle of a small enterprise. Naturally, the market trends have shifted through countless cycles.

"In addition to studying interdisciplinary knowledge at universities, I have also encountered colleagues who are 'self-taught' in mastering interdisciplinary knowledge. However, for clinical doctors like me, it is quite challenging."

During the master’s program, students pursuing academic degrees can continue to spend extensive time in the laboratory, whereas those like me, who intend to enter clinical practice, must train in hospitals, rotating through various departments to further hone their clinical skills. At this stage, it is difficult to find opportunities to achieve mastery in another distantly related discipline, let alone after graduation when one enters clinical work.

And throughout my studies, I have always adhered to the principle that:The idea that learning knowledge from other disciplines is merely an added bonus, while mastering the ability to treat diseases and save lives is of paramount importance.Perhaps this is also the main reason why I failed to become an interdisciplinary talent.

However, it was only after entering the workforce that I realized clinicians are in the best position to access and identify frontline pain points, and their innovative ideas often align more closely with market demands.The contradiction between ideas and reality has given rise to the need for cross-functional teams.

When my research idea first began to take shape, I was thrilled, but I quickly calmed down—where could I find an engineering team to bring it to fruition?

Fortunately,The hospital frequently organizes training sessions on technology transfer and roadshow events., by establishing an official platform for external communication and the presentation of scientific research achievements, thereby attracting potential partners.

I have become a regular participant in technology transfer activities, although I am unable to attend every session. After all, the majority of my energy must be devoted to clinical practice, leaving only scant moments—squeezed out from the cracks in my schedule—for such initiatives. Furthermore, when these events conflict with my outpatient consultations, surgical schedules, or other academic and observational commitments, I must prioritize those professional duties. Consequently, being able to attend even one hospital-organized technology transfer event per month is already quite satisfactory.

At the event, I noticed that the attendees were predominantly young physicians. I discussed this observation with Xiao Zhang from the Transfer Office, who remarked, “Senior researchers typically have overly packed schedules and rarely have the time to attend; alternatively, they often send students from their research groups in their stead.”

In addition to organizing events, the Technology Transfer Office also compiles our achievements and recommends them to suitable enterprises. Some of my colleagues have found their collaborative teams through this approach, but I have still struggled to find the right partners.

Sometimes companies seek collaborative development, while at other times they expect me to transfer the resulting intellectual property. However, I have reservations about such transfers:The process of transferring research achievements involves issues such as the loss of state-owned assets, ownership attribution, and the use of funds by research institutions and universities.The market knowledge involved therein is not something I can fully master in a short period of time.

In addition, experienced colleagues told“Sometimes companies acquire scientific research outcomes merely to clear the way for their own product patents, not for development purposes.”Following the project transfer, the enterprise assumes full responsibility for its development and commercialization. I have no control over the timing of development, the technical approaches employed, or the strategies used to advance market adoption. This mode of transfer also deviates from my original intentions.

During a technology transfer event, I struck up a conversation with an investor. He was highly interested in my project, but we were unable to delve into deeper discussions due to the lack of a physical prototype. I had previously in an article by Orange Fruit Bureau“Investors Betting on Translation Are Finding the Future Amid ‘Read but No Reply’”Having gained an understanding of the entire venture capital (VC) investment process. VCs that focus on early-stage and small-scale investments typically observe a project for 2–3 years before deciding whether to invest. During this period, market trends shift and new technologies emerge, making the final outcome of any potential collaboration uncertain. Substantive post-investment services are provided by VCs only after a partnership has been formally established.

Therefore, while I understand the investor’s decision to discontinue communication, it has further strengthened my resolve to find an “engineering partner.” A friend with experience in medical-engineering collaborations told me:"There are incubators specifically designed for medical-engineering collaboration"“, perhaps it can solve my problem.” I thought, this might be a new way out.

When I first began to explore incubators, I discovered that they had evolved significantly from my initial perceptions. Initially, most incubation platforms adopted a broad-based approach, accepting projects across all sectors as long as they demonstrated promising commercialization prospects and implementation potential. With the increasing number of incubation platforms,Platforms are also ushering in a transformation toward being “small, specialized, and advanced.”。

And now I have found that there are many specialized incubation services tailored for medical-engineering translation projects, focusing on refined support such as project application assistance, which address virtually all the issues researchers may encounter during the translation process.

I once visited an incubator specializing in the translation of medical-engineering innovations. Upon entering the park, I saw several large factory buildings, which staff members identified as their workshops, capable of helping researchers build prototypes.

Later, I came to understand that inOnly after the prototype is produced can the research project proceed to steps such as registration for testing and regulatory submission.. However, the incubation platform cannot accompany me all the way into the market. Entering the market requires building a complete supply chain and specialized production lines. Since product manufacturing processes vary significantly, the cost of establishing new production lines is prohibitively high, making it difficult for the incubation platform to bear such expenses.

But I think it’s still a good approach, after all, partnering with “tangible assets” in hand will significantly increase the success rate.

On one occasion, while chatting with several former classmates, a friend who now teaches at a medical school mentioned that his project had also stalled at the stage of medical-engineering collaboration. Upon hearing “medical-engineering collaboration,” I immediately perked up. He was luckier than me: there happened to be an engineering professor’s team at his university whose expertise matched his project. Facilitated by the university’s matchmaking efforts, the two research teams began their collaboration.

“Isn’t that great? You’ve already started collaborating.” “You don’t understand; the real challenges are just beginning.”

My friend said, “Communicating with engineering teams is quite a hassle.”The gap between engineering and medicine spans not only professional knowledge but also modes of thinking.

When designing medical devices, his perspective and approach were rooted in clinical needs. Considerations such as width, length, and even material selection were all driven by the goal of facilitating clinical use. However, the engineering team had to account for manufacturing feasibility and technical operability, and in some cases, the practicality of assembly-line production. As a result, the two sides frequently engaged in heated debates over discrepancies as small as “1 cm.”

Hearing this, I couldn’t help but laugh, thinking to myself: “It’s a good thing you’re only working with medical devices; if you were involved in drug development, we wouldn’t even be able to communicate due to the specialized terminology.” But then I grew concerned: if I later find a “partner from an engineering background,” how will I manage to understand their language?

Thus, I began to consciously acquire interdisciplinary knowledge, learning to approach projects from an engineering-operational perspective in order to identify solutions that achieve both medical efficacy and engineering feasibility.

At an academic conference, the CEO of a company specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of brain disorders shared his experience: “With my background in both engineering and medicine, I automatically assign appropriate tasks to the two research teams when overseeing scientific projects, while also serving as a ‘translator’ between them.”

This was an inspiration. Later, I conducted an in-depth analysis of several companies founded by researchers, particularly technology-oriented startups, and found that many of their CEOs had interdisciplinary support or co-founded the ventures with experts from other fields.

Additionally, some companies hire “product managers” to facilitate cross-departmental requirements communication. These product managers may not necessarily be highly proficient in both medicine and engineering, but they have a clearer understanding of the respective needs and thought processes of both sides. In simple terms, they are able toTranslate the specialized terminology of both parties into technical requirements that are understandable to each other, thereby resolving communication barriers between them.

Therefore, I believe that after finding a suitable “engineering partner,” I can also appoint a “translator” within the team to address communication issues.

A review of my efforts in promoting the translation of medical innovations into clinical practice reveals that both hospitals and society at large have provided pathways to strengthen this process.Although collaboration between medicine and engineering has become commonplace in the field of medical innovation, clinical researchers still struggle to find their “engineering counterparts.”

In my view, on the one hand, technology transfer centers still need to enhance the pertinence of their services to help overcome the commercialization challenges faced by more high-quality projects. On the other hand, we researchers must fully embrace an interdisciplinary learning mindset. The future of medical science will undoubtedly advance through the integration of medicine and engineering technologies; only by leveraging the strengths of interdisciplinary talent can we achieve a synergistic effect where 1+1>2.