  As science becomes more complex, the idea of assembling diverse teams of
specialists--much like a blacksmith, a mason, and a carpenter coming together
to form a Leonardo da Vinci--has gained traction as a key solution to achieve
groundbreaking innovations. This high expectation of "team science" has fueled
the rise of teams as the fundamental unit of the social organization across all
fields. However, recent research suggests that simply adding more experts to a
team does not necessarily lead to more breakthrough ideas. In fact, despite the
growth of research teams, truly radical innovations appear to be declining.
Against this background, we investigate how scientists can effectively
exchange, fuse, and create breakthrough ideas across disciplines within the
team. Our study also compares the innovative performance between teams composed
of generalists versus specialists, in the context of interdisciplinary
collaboration (IDC). Using Microsoft Academic Graph, we examine 8 million
papers between 1960 and 2020 published by 6 million scholars. We find that (1)
Interdisciplinary teams are less disruptive than disciplinary teams and (2) In
interdisciplinary collaboration, teams of generalists outperform teams of
specialists in preserving their innovation capability as the team grows. While
specialists and specialist teams are prevalent in science, our findings suggest
that scholars who extend themselves to other disciplines and collaborate with
others who do the same are better equipped to overcome the common challenges of
IDC and produce highly disruptive scientific work. These results challenge the
current zeitgeist that views specialization and team collaboration that build
upon it as an inevitable and rewarding trend, and offer valuable insights into
how to effectively evaluate and support team-based science.
