There is a reason Leonardo da Vinci is remembered as more than an artist.
He painted the Mona Lisa, but he was also deeply interested in anatomy, engineering, mathematics and the workings of nature. Isaac Newton is remembered as a physicist and mathematician, but his interests also extended to theology and other areas of knowledge.
The idea of learning across subjects, therefore, is hardly new. What is changing is the opportunity to formally combine those subjects — and the need to do so in a world where problems rarely belong to just one field. Could students of the future study engineering alongside biology, economics with mathematics, or medicine with artificial intelligence, without sacrificing depth in their main subject?
The 2026 Nobel winners provide a timely example. Their academic journeys and research have moved across disciplines, from biology and biophysics to neuroscience, from particle physics to astronomy, and from chemistry towards questions relevant to biology and pharmaceuticals.
The question for students is no longer simply which subject should I choose? It may increasingly be what should I combine with it?
WHEN ONE SUBJECT ISN’T ENOUGH
Consider this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Karl Deisseroth, Peter Hegemann and Georg Nagel were recognised for discoveries leading to optogenetics, a technique that uses light to control nerve cells.
The research brought together knowledge of light-sensitive proteins, biology, biophysics and neuroscience. Work on proteins found in algae eventually helped researchers investigate the workings of the brain.
Physics laureate Francis Halzen offers another example. His work on the IceCube Neutrino Observatory combines particle physics with astrophysics, engineering and data analysis to study high-energy neutrinos arriving from space.
The Chemistry Nobel winners Henri Kagan and Kenso Soai, meanwhile, were recognised for research on asymmetric organic synthesis and autocatalysis, with connections to questions relevant to biological chemistry and pharmaceuticals.
These journeys raise an important question: if research increasingly crosses subject boundaries, should undergraduate education make it easier for students to do the same?
Dr Gaurav A Bhaduri, Assistant Professor in the Chemical Engineering Department and Adjunct Professor in the Departments of Interdisciplinary Programs and Biosciences and Bioengineering at IIT Jammu, says the tradition of interdisciplinary science goes back much further than the latest Nobel Prizes.
“What has changed today is the speed and extent to which different fields are coming together,” he said. His advice to students is straightforward: “Keep your core, but don’t let your core become your boundary.”
On the other hand, Professor Shreepad Karmalkar, director of IIT Bhubaneswar, says students should first build depth in one discipline before reaching across it.
“Students should not abandon core degrees, as new ideas cannot emerge without deep, foundational expertise in a primary ‘vertical’ discipline,” he said.
The future, in his view, is about adding a horizontal layer to that depth — through minors, electives, communication and collaboration.
SO, FROM AI TO ECONOMICS, WHAT SHOULD STUDENTS COMBINE?
The answer need not always be another technical subject.
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 estimates that 39% of workers’ core skills will change by 2030. AI and big data are among the fastest-growing skills, alongside continuing demand for analytical and creative thinking.
For students, this makes combinations such as computing with biology or engineering with AI worth exploring. But the right choice depends on the problems they want to solve.
Dr Siddhartha Maiti, Associate Professor and Programme Chair at VIT Bhopal University’s School of Biosciences Engineering & Technology, recommends computational thinking, programming, statistics and data interpretation for students across traditional science and engineering degrees.
“The future belongs to those who can connect ideas across domains rather than remain confined within a single specialisation,” he said.
Bhaduri takes a broader view, recommending that students also develop an understanding of economics, biology and environmental thinking.
His reasoning is practical: technology may work, but can it be made sustainable? Can nature offer a better design? Can AI improve it? And does it make economic sense?
For instance, economics paired with mathematics can help students understand financial modelling and economic forecasting. Engineering with design can connect technical solutions with how people use them, while biology with computing can support work in bioinformatics.
Nandita Abraham, Dean of BITS Design School, believes the human element will become particularly important as technology spreads.
“For science and engineering students, AI and data fluency will soon be baseline,” she said. “The differentiator will be a deep understanding of people.”
The goal, then, is not to become an expert in everything.
AI is also making it easier for students to explore subjects beyond their formal degrees. From breaking down unfamiliar concepts to helping learners practise coding or understand basic economic principles, AI tools can make knowledge more accessible. However, they are a starting point for learning, not a substitute for building genuine understanding and expertise.
The larger idea is simple: the second subject does not have to be another technical subject. Sometimes it can provide the human, economic or social context missing from the first.
INDIA HAS ALREADY STARTED OPENING THE DOORS
This is where India’s higher-education reforms become important.
The National Education Policy 2020 calls for multidisciplinary higher education and greater flexibility in how students choose their courses. The University Grants Commission’s Curriculum and Credit Framework for Undergraduate Programmes has subsequently introduced a flexible, choice-based credit system and a multidisciplinary approach.
The UGC also lists the Academic Bank of Credits, multiple entry and exit, multidisciplinary higher education institutions and the ability to pursue two academic programmes simultaneously among its major initiatives.
So the framework for mixing subjects is increasingly being built.
The harder question is implementation.
Bhaduri believes India still has considerable ground to cover. “Interdisciplinarity cannot simply be taught as another course. It has to become part of the curriculum, pedagogy, and institutional culture,” he said.
Karmalkar says reputed higher education institutions are already offering major-minor structures, but pedagogy also needs to change. At IIT Bhubaneswar, he said, classrooms are being redesigned for Active Collaborative Learning, with students working in small groups rather than relying only on lectures.
Abraham says credits should be portable across departments, field immersion should earn academic credit and faculty should be rewarded for collaboration.
Maiti, meanwhile, cautions that implementation remains uneven, with infrastructure, faculty capacity and examination-focused assessment posing challenges.
For students, this means checking more than a course title when choosing a college. Can they take electives outside their department? Are interdisciplinary projects available? Can they explore a minor without weakening their core training?
For centuries, the best thinkers often crossed boundaries because they were curious enough to do so. Now, universities have the chance to make that crossing easier, without asking students to give up the depth that makes them experts in the first place.
– Ends