What constitutes a strong multidisciplinary program in materials? Does a strong multidisciplinary program require strong disciplines? What are the differences (if any) between interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, crossdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary programs? Are thrust areas essential components of a good multidisciplinary program? What is the role of central facilities in multidisciplinary research and education? Are there intrinsic differences between the activities of graduate students in multidisciplinary and single-investigator programs? Is peer review appropriate and, equally important, feasible for large multidisciplinary programs?

This family of questions is of increasing interest and some concern in both the academic and funding segments of the national materials community. It does not appear to be a major issue in either the industrial or national laboratory arenas, where the funding practices, organizational patterns, and in some respects the research and development goals, are different from those in the research universities. An essential distinction is the presence of a formal education component in the graduate materials programs in the universities. However, in discussions of academic materials research programs, both funder and (regrettably) fundee occasionally relegate purely educational aspects to the background.

Multidisciplinary and block-funded programs are a steadily increasing fraction of the total research support in materials available to universities. Some 30 years ago virtually all university research in materials-related subjects was supported through single-investigator grants.