for example , the american society for microbiology has 27 divisions , each representing a discrete field , such as clinical microbiology , microbial ecology , and medical mycology .
victor dirita has recently written a thought - provoking essay that questions whether microbiological fields have become obsolete ( 2 ) .
dirita suggests that consolidation into perhaps as few as four large interest groups might foster scientific integration and better serve the needs of society members . here
we explore the reasons that scientists self - organize into fields and how the shortcomings of fields might be ameliorated .
these areas range from the larger subdivisions , such as biology , physics , and astronomy , to smaller groups within those disciplines .
for example , wikipedia divides biology into dozens of subfields , including microbiology and physiology , with immunology considered a branch of physiology ( 3 ) .
most scientists define themselves as belonging to a particular scientific field . as part of our continuing exploration of the state of current science , which includes prior essays on descriptive ( 4 ) , mechanistic ( 5 ) , important ( 6 ) , specialized ( 7 ) , diseased ( 8) ,
competitive ( 9 ) , and historical ( 9 ) science , we now examine how fields emerge and how their emergence influences the workings of science .
dictionaries define fields as  particular branches of study or spheres of activity or interest  ( 10 ) .
this definition certainly applies to scientific fields , but there are other definitions more narrowly crafted for science .
kuhn argued that a field of science should ideally have a paradigm :  acquisition of a paradigm and of the more esoteric type of research it permits is a sign of maturity in the development of any given scientific field  ( 11 ) .
darden had a more extensive list of requirements :  a central problem , a domain of items taken to be facts related to that problem , general explanatory factors and goals providing expectations as to how the problem is to be solved , techniques and methods , and concepts , laws and theories related to the problem which attempt to realize the explanatory goals  ( 12 ) .
although these definitions apply to some scientific fields , they do not work very well for microbiology .
perhaps the greatest limitation is that microbiological fields tend to be defined by common interests rather than by theoretical concepts . in microbiology , field definitions are often microbe - centric rather than focused on specific problems .
for example , the authors of this essay are members of the cryptococcus and salmonella fields , respectively , which include individuals working on very different sorts of problems .
membership in one of these fields requires contributing in some manner , but the contribution may range widely from structural biology to physiology to clinical medicine .
paradigmatic classification is perhaps more applicable to immunology , which contains some fields organized according to processes , e.g. , antigen recognition , tolerance , autoimmunity , etc . , but even there , one finds groupings that fail to conform to specific paradigms , such as the b cell , t cell , antibody , innate immunity , and mucosal immunity fields . in considering the fields that are represented among the members of the american society for microbiology ,
apart from classification by phylogeny and process , fields may be defined by the meetings , journals , and organizations created to serve scientists with common interests .
for instance , the authors of this essay are both in the field of microbiology , but one is in the field of mycology and the other in the field of bacteriology . since both authors study how microbes cause disease , they also belong to the fields of infectious diseases and microbial pathogenesis .
however , one predominantly studies problems in immunology while the other is focused on molecular biology , genetics , and biochemistry . to further complicate matters , both are interested in the workings of science , an interest that relates to the fields of philosophy , sociology , and even economics , as reflected in this essay .
the point of this exercise is to illustrate the difficulty of assigning individuals to particular fields with any degree of certitude , as individual scientists typically belong to multiple fields .
in fact , field membership appears to be determined largely by self - definition by individuals according to their interests and is also dependent upon their acceptance by the other scientists working in a particular area .
this implies a sociological dimension to field membership , which in turn suggests that field definition depends not only on scientific content but also on the other scientists with whom a scientist associates . from this vantage point
for example , those who attend the annual meetings of the american society for microbiology and the american association of immunology may be labeled 
similarly , individuals may be classified by where they publish their scientific work , with those publishing in microbiology or immunology journals being assigned to those respective fields .
clearly , scientific field delineation , membership , and boundaries do not lend themselves to easy definition .
we propose that a scientific field is a collection of individuals with a common interest in some aspect of science who interact on a regular basis . the interaction may be social , professional , and/or through the act of publication .
this definition of a  field  differs from earlier ones by focusing on the human element as the key to field composition and yet incorporates interests , common goals , etc .
a scientific field viewed as a group of interacting individuals sharing a common interest is distinct from earlier definitions because it is based on human choices rather than on mere subject matter .
the human interactions required by fields provide them with a social dimension , and fields may therefore be regarded as the sociological units of science .
fields emerge , grow , decline , or disappear depending on the interest level of individual scientists .
for example , the field of phage biology did not exist prior to the discovery of phages , expanded markedly during the mid-20th century when it attracted many of the leading luminaries of molecular biology , and declined during the latter part of the 20th century as individuals became more interested in animal viruses , only to be reinvigorated in recent years by the genomics revolution , the realization that phages are critical mediators of gene transfer among bacteria and the transformative crispr / cas9-based technology .
the health of a field is generally proportional to the number of people interested in it , and fields can wither and die if abandoned by individuals who find other areas more worthy of study .
alternatively , the success of a field can also bring its own demise as a coherent subgroup in science .
consider , for example , the field of molecular biology , which emerged from the realization that proteins and dna were molecules that could be studied , characterized , and manipulated .
progress in molecular biology spawned a wide variety of powerful techniques that went on to revolutionize other areas of biology .
whereas molecular biologists were once at the cutting edge of a revolution in biology , practically everyone in the biological sciences today can be considered to be a molecular biologist of one sort or another .
molecular biology has become so pervasive that the field of molecular biology has lost its once unique identity .
perhaps fields that are incorporated into multiple other fields have achieved the ultimate level of success .
scientific fields provide opportunities for professional friendships , collaborations , and interactions that promote science , but they are not immune to the problems found in society at large , such as gender and racial discrimination .
alice c. evans , the first female president of the american society for microbiology , had to overcome gender discrimination when she proposed that brucellosis could be transmitted by unpasteurized milk .
she persevered and was eventually vindicated despite fierce opposition from male contemporaries who  did not want any woman scientists  ( 14 ) .
although women are now well represented in graduate training programs in the life sciences , the underrepresentation of women and minorities at senior academic levels remains an ongoing concern ( 15 , 16 ) .
a scientific field , once formed , plays an important role in achieving consensus on matters large and small , including the following .
what are the standards for data acquisition and analysis ? in this manner , fields establish the rules by which science is done . however , the answers to these questions have a sociological dimension .
the decision of what problems to pursue may be driven as much by the charisma and personalities of individuals in a field as by more objective factors .
some fields may encourage the open sharing of information and reagents , while others may foster secrecy and internecine competition . to understand the customs of a field
, one must be in the field or have close contact with those who are .
fields are also the keepers of specialized knowledge , which is not always accessible to outsiders . for example
, it may be common knowledge within a microbiological field that there are peculiarities associated with a particular microbial strain , but that information may be shared informally and may not be available to a scientist who relies on the published literature . in this regard
, fields share some characteristics with guilds , which regulate competition by strictly controlling admission and the sharing of information .
those who seek to work in a particular field must obtain insider knowledge in order to publish and become accepted by a field . as repositories for specialized knowledge , fields carry the risk that the knowledge and beliefs within fields can develop into dogma , which becomes normative and can impede progress .
the history of science is replete with examples in which prevailing dogma has impeded scientific progress .
for example , alphonse laveran had to overcome the dogma that malaria was caused by noxious air to show that it was actually the result of a parasitic bloodstream infection ( 17 ) .
a nearly universally held belief in the tuberculosis field for the last half century was that antibody - mediated immunity had no role ( despite many observations that suggested otherwise ) , which delayed appreciation of the importance of humoral immunity in tuberculosis ( 18 , 19 ) .
more recently , the central dogma of molecular biology , in which information flows from dna to rna to proteins , has been challenged by the discoveries of reverse transcription and prions ( 20 , 21 ) .
although the central dogma remains essentially intact , scientists now appreciate that there are exceptions to the rule .
the failure of reverse transcription and prions to conform to existing dogma initially delayed their acceptance ( 22 , 23 ) .
it can be very difficult for a scientist to overcome established dogma , as publication and funding are controlled by established members of a field .
peer review can be seen as a two - edged sword that on the one hand helps to enforce rigorous standards of quality but on the other hand may stifle innovation and lead to stagnation .
the infusion of new members can also invigorate a field , hence planck s observation that  a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light , but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up  ( 24 ) .
determining the boundaries of a field can sometimes be difficult , for no two individuals in a field have identical interests , and many spheres of interest overlap .
as richard feynman observed ,  we make no apologies for   excursions into other fields , because the separation of fields , as we have emphasized , is merely a human convenience , and an unnatural thing .
nature is not interested in our separations , and many of the interesting phenomena bridge the gaps between fields  ( 25 ) .
one need only attend the general meeting of the american society for microbiology to see both the benefits and drawbacks of fields .
although the 27 divisions promote within - field interactions , they also contribute to the balkanization of science and create artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary interactions and transdisciplinary thinking .
given the interdisciplinary nature of science , the dangers of dogmatism , and the fuzzy nature of fields , one might then ask , as dirita has done ( 2 ) , why have fields at all ?
the anthropologist robin dunbar has observed that the size of social groups in primates is related to the size of the brain s neocortex ( r = 0.61 ) ( 26 ) .
he hypothesizes that this is the result of cognitive limits on the number of stable social relationships that can be maintained . a regression analysis of data obtained from various primate genera yields an estimated limit on human group size of 148 ( 95% confidence interval , 100 to 230 ) ( 27 ) .
dunbar s number has been applied in settings as diverse as companies , government agencies , and social networks .
groups that exceed dunbar s number may experience a loss of cohesion , which could be a factor in the emergence of new fields as old ones expand and diversify .
the social organization of human enterprises that includes scientific fields may therefore be a direct reflection of the tendencies and limitations of the human brain .
this suggests that the american society for microbiology s high - minded initiative to consolidate its 40,000 members into four large groups may ultimately fail to substitute for existing divisions because scientists , like all primates , crave intimacy and cohesive communities .
given that fields are currently essential to the functioning of science , it may be preferable to identify ways to maximize their benefits while ameliorating their disadvantages . here
such individuals may lose the benefits of field membership and may be perceived as not being seriously interested in the core subject matter of a field .
however , allowing scientists to wander can benefit a field by sharing the specialized knowledge of the field with others ( 7 ) and fostering cross - fertilization . being gentle on those who wander
also increases the probability that those individuals will one day return with new knowledge and experiences gained from other fields , which in turn could enrich their original field .
recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary , multidisciplinary , and transdisciplinary interactions , institutions , funding agencies , associations , journals , and meeting organizers should strive to create mechanisms to mingle and reassort individuals and concepts in ways that transcend conventional field boundaries and get scientists out of their comfort zones .
this might involve research centers , conferences , sessions , or collaborative projects , just to name a few possibilities .
a dogma is defined as  a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true 
certainly , there is no problem when a dogma is true , such the theory of heliocentrism .
however , when dogmas are false or incomplete , they can impede scientific progress . as discussed earlier ,
all fields have dogmas , which influence the type of work that can be done and published through the mechanism of peer review .
this exercise can prompt a healthy reevaluation of the evidence supporting current dogmas and focus work on outstanding questions in the field .
in parallel , the most important unsolved problems in a field should be defined as the first step toward finding solutions . at the beginning of the 20th century , the german mathematician david hilbert laid out 23 important problems , which helped to catalyze many novel solutions ( 29 ) .
this is relatively easy to do , as recently demonstrated by one of the authors of this essay at the conclusion of a meeting ( 30 ) .
the mere exercise of listing problems can lead to discussions that promote new scientific directions . v.
fields wish to grow and attract members but ironically put up many barriers that make it difficult for outsiders to join .
field membership includes publications and invitations to meetings , which in turn are determined by peer review .
it behooves fields to be generous in welcoming outsiders by not creating undue obstacles for those wanting to enter a field .
growth is a sign of health , and all fields should strive to recruit new members .
established members can assist newcomers by educating them with regard to unstated dogmas , esoteric protocols , and the prevailing social dynamics of a field .
fields can promote diversity by being more inclusive of women , minorities , and young investigators when selecting speakers for meetings , recruiting journal editors , and electing society officers .
as fields have many similarities to tribes , it is unsurprising that fields can lead to tribalism .
. resource scarcity may enhance tribalistic behavior that can interfere with the proper functioning of review groups , scientific organizations , meetings , etc .
tribalism can be avoided by focusing on what is good for science rather than what is good for a field and by promoting the fluid exchange of ideas and individuals between fields .
the emergence of fields is an inevitable outcome , given the social nature of human beings and the necessity for specialization in the face of increasing knowledge .
fields make important contributions to the scientific enterprise , including the creation of cohesive communities , preservation of information , establishment of normative standards , and provision of mechanisms for peer review .
however , fields can also lead to parochialism and dogmatism and may impede interactions between disciplines .
 abstractfields are the fundamental sociological units of science . despite their importance 
 , relatively little has been written about their emergence , composition , structure , and function in the scientific enterprise . 
 this essay considers the nature of fields and their important role in maintaining information and providing normative standards for scientific work . 
 we suggest that fields arise naturally as a consequence of increasing information and scientific specialization . 
 new fields tend to emerge as research communities grow , which may reflect biologically determined optima for the size of human groups . 
 the benefits of fields include the organization of scientists with similar interests into communities that collectively define the next important problems to pursue . in the discipline of microbiology , fields 
 are often organized on the basis of phylogenetic differences between microorganisms being studied . 
 although fields are essential to the proper functioning of science , their emergence can restrict access by outsiders and sustain dogmas that hinder progress . 
 we suggest mechanisms to improve the functioning of scientific fields and to promote interdisciplinary interaction between fields . 
EDITORIAL
WHAT IS A FIELD?
SCIENTIFIC FIELDS AS SOCIOLOGICAL UNITS OF SCIENCE
THE NORMATIVE ROLE OF SCIENTIFIC FIELDS
FIELDS HAVE FUZZY EDGES
FIELDS AS COMMUNITIES
SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE FIELD PERFORMANCE
CONCLUSIONS