Science - Sealed, Delivered.

Scientist or Engineer?

Wed Feb 18 2009

Russ Altman, fresh off of winning the Nature Network Science Blogging Challenge 2008 prize for his blog Building Confidence, posted an entry exploring the difference between what he terms Bioinformatics and Computational Biology.

One passage in particular jumped out at me:

All this became important to me when I finally joined a bioengineering department, and I was forced to ask myself if I was a scientist or an engineer. I am both, and now am at peace.

Wow. This sure rings true to me — at least the last bit.

I guess I still agree with the ‘first 15 years’ Russ though, because I think these are two sides of the same coin. I suppose I might take a wider view of what constitutes ’science’ than Russ though. Perhaps this will change for me, as it did for Russ, and the distinctions between otherwise very related fields will seem more important.

Generally, though, I think the distinction between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ sciences is way overblown, particularly in today’s age. FemaleScienceProfessor apparently took great offense to a piece by Henry Petroski (ironically, a frequent contributor to American Scientist) entitled Want to Engineer Real Change? Don’t Ask a Scientist that appeared in the Washington Post last month.

I don’t particularly ascribe to Petroski’s views on this, as he reinforces a distinction in that piece that I think is largely illusion, as demonstrated unequivocally by much of Petroski’s own work. But I think he’s trying to make a point here, and it’s one that the posts and comments on Russ Altman and FemaleScienceProfessor’s blog play right into. Petroski’s view is that engineering IS science (and in particular that it deserves to be mentioned in any discussion of funding). Think I’m exaggerating? Take for instance this passage from FSP’s piece:

A world with scientists but no engineers would be just as limited as a world with engineers and no scientists. It is pointless to set the two communities in opposition, as if one has been important throughout history and one has been comparatively useless.

While I believe FSP was attempting to be constructive, and this passage certainly feels very ‘let’s all get along-y’, I find that what she is saying is belied by the very way in which she says it. Most of the comments to the piece continue along the same lines of thought.

Consider this though: How would a (’pure’) scientist such as a biologist, a chemist, or a physicist feel if so many of their peers debated the merits or funding of science research versus research in the fields of biology, chemistry or physics, or touted the need for ‘both physicists AND scientists’? Offended I would expect, as the inevitable implication that the two fields do not overlap is absurd and, at least conceivably, quite insulting.

It’s the premise of the debate itself that is wrong. Good research, or good funding, is not a choice between conducting science or engineering any more than good eating is a choice between eating fruit or apples.

—–
Update: Mailund also has some thoughts on the distinction between ‘Bioinformatics’, ‘Computational Biology’, ‘Science’, and ‘Engineering’, which makes the point that he believes Building Confidence’s definitions are reversed.