In a recent New York Times article, Jimmy Lin from of the University of Maryland is quoted as saying, "Science these days has basically turned into a data-management problem." If this is true, then those responsible for data management have failed. The last thing scientists should be worrying about is managing data. Mining data, sure, but managing data? While the efforts documented in that story to begin to teach scientists how to grapple with large amounts of data are laudable, they all seem to focus on computer scientists, not biologists or chemists or physicists. There will be few people who can understand the worlds of, for example, biology and computer science deeply. What is needed are those who can understand one of these disciplines deeply and extend into other disciplines as needed. These individuals can act as connections, glue, between disciplines and accelerate research in these areas, which more and more require many domains of expertise. For example, designing DNA sequencing instruments requires deep understanding in fields as diverse as optics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, biology, mechanical engineering, computer science, and computer engineering. No one person can master all these fields, but people are desperately needed to bridge between them. As Chad Fowler writes in the section of his book The Passionate Programmer entitled Coding Don't Cut It Anymore,
If you want to stay relevant, you’re going to have to dive into the domain of the business you’re in.
In fact, a software person should understand a business domain not only well enough to develop software for it but also to become one of its authorities.