Most expert know more and more about less and less because in order to understand something you need to dig ever deeper to understand the specifics.
What is needs is expert generalists that are able to understand several fields well enough to see where knowledge from one area can lead to understanding in others and vice versa.
Freeman Dyson is a great example because at 89 he published the solution to the prisoner's dilemma, decades later than the original theoretical physics work.
Dyson truly proposes a great solution lying in PD. That is a huge oversight for game theorists when they let an outsider do that.
However, it's not the ultimate solution. It's an extremely interesting aspect (a strategy, a style of play) of the PD that game theorists somehow have never seen and articulated in maths.
For the evolutionary fitness of the extortioner solution that Dyson discovers:
Evolution of extortion in Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma games http://www.pnas.org/content/110/17/6913.abstract
I once read about a whole series of areas where solutions to issues in one field happened from understanding from understanding another field. Unfortunately ver few people span over multiple fields and can call themselves experts.
So the questions is whether we could spread out the expertise to more in between studies and letting go of literature as the only way to collect knowledge might be a great first step.
Or put another way.
Instead of modeling knowledge after the way our brain best deal with structure we should leave the structuring to the machines and start approaching it more like an organism that can be explored. I think we are bound to see something along those lines soon.