I'm getting this idea from paying attention.
The last five Economics Nobel Prizes were:
2024 -- How political institutions impact economic development (political science + economics)
2023 -- Historical economics used to understand women in the labor force (history + economics)
2022 -- The importance of bank crises in economic collapse (pure economics)
2021 -- Observational methodology and causal networks (statistics + economics)
2020 -- How to run better auctions (pure economics)
The last five Chemistry Nobel Prizes were:
2024 -- computational methods for protein structure (machine learning + biochemistry)
2023 -- quantum dot discovery and construction (chemistry + physics)
2022 -- development of techniques to create chemical diversity (pure chemistry)
2021 -- development of catalytic methods that enable control of chirality (pure chemistry)
2020 -- discovery and deployment of CRISPR for genome editing (chemistry + molecular biology/genetics)
The last five Physics Nobel Prizes were:
2024 -- links between computation and statistical mechanics (physics + machine learning)
2023 -- attosecond light pulses (pure physics)
2022 -- use of entangled photons to violate Bell's inequality and perform quantum computing (pure physics)
2021 -- predicting complex systems including spin glasses and climate (mostly physics but some climate science)
2020 -- predictions about and discoveries of black holes (pure physics)
By my count, about half of the advances considered significant enough to warrant a Nobel--and yes, it is of course a flawed measure, but it's better than nothing--are interdisciplinary in nature. If you pick up a random field-specific journal like Nature Chemistry, almost all the articles are on things like "Cobalt-catalysed desymmetrization of malononitriles via enantioselective borohydride reduction"--that is, very field-centered; and if you look at a random university department like the University of Chicago you'll see interests like "Self-Organization of Polymer Thin Films and Chiral Molecular Systems".
And there should be a lot of stuff like this. If a field isn't good at its core specialty, the advantages available if you can realize it's applicable somewhere else are greatly reduced.
But it remains the case that, observationally, we seem to have less investment in interdisciplinary work than our appreciation of it seems to warrant.
Of course, this doesn't mean it will all go well all the time. It's more difficult conceptually than typical research because if you're not, yourself, a world-class expert in both areas, it can be difficult to predict what the promising research directions will be. Fostering the discussions between the individual world-class experts in the separate areas is also tricky.
But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try harder. It doesn't mean that academia is as siloed--another term for being in a echo chamber--as it should be.