Lately, I've been thinking more and more about the dichotomy between scientists and engineers. While similar in many ways, scientists and engineers have proven to be very different in terms of adaptability, use of resources, and application of theories. While these and other differences are essential to both groups, I can't help but feel that both scientists and engineers would stand to gain much from opening up dialogue with each other a bit more.

I myself studied civil engineering here in Montreal, though I later abandoned that career choice because, well it was a career choice, not a personal choice. In other words, it seemed like a good idea because I could get a decent job afterwards, with a decent starting salary. That's the reason so many of us do what we do in this capital-driven economic system we've built(indeed, we're programmed to think this way from a very young age), but in the end, it seemed like an awfully shallow reason to become an engineer, scientist or anything, really.

How many scientists here became scientists because they *really* love science? How many of us really grew up loving science itself, and knew from an early age that this is really what we wanted to do, regardless of the career path / job opportunities?

And how many of us followed a scientific career path because it would provide us with a comfortable living, a good salary, and a secure future? Or for some other superficial reason, such as going into a "well-respected" field, or making our parents proud?

One of the most important differences between a pure science versus an engineering degree is that there is a career path from an undergraduate degree in engineering. Engineering graduates are qualified to pursue their professional license. Not so in science, where one typically requires graduate work to be employable in that field.

Science primarily involves using experimentation to uncover new things about the physical world, while engineering is about applying that scientific knowledge to create useful products and services for society. While science is firmly rooted in research, engineering relies on both research and design. Both disciplines require a strong knowledge of scientific theory, math and computing.From Queens University

While both engineers and scientists know how to "tinker" with things, it seems to me that engineers like to tinker with everything around them that they don't yet fully understand, while scientists prefer to restrict their exploration to topics that fall within their own scientific grasp. A good example of this is the Internet - most engineers I know are much more web-savvy than most scientists I know. They both had the same starting point, but it's the engineer who was quicker at asking questions, figuring things out, not only trying to understand the "how" of the way things like blogging, wikis, distributed social networks, etc. work, but also figuring out the "why". These engineers seem to understand the importance of sharing and the value of open information, where the general attitude I've gotten back with my years of working with the global scientific community has been one of "This is my research, this is my information, etc.

Also - and this might have something to do with the aforementioned understanding of social networks - engineers accept the fact that they are just a very small part of a much larger system. When I think of engineers, the visual that appears in my head is one of mechanical engineers working in teams, of computer engineers spread across the world working on an open-source project, or of civil or mining engineers together on a surveying mission. When I imagine scientists, I see a lone elder man with a white beard surrounded by flasks, or - at best - a sterile lab with people in lab coats, completely quiet, each staring down their own microscope.

These are, of course, hilariously inaccurate caricatures. But it's undeniable that science has been - and still is - a much more rigid and impenetrable topic, while engineers have been quick to assimilate with the technology that's around them. Scientists seem to accept to use this technology - without trying to understand it - only if it serves in their field of research.

Scientists want to understand the theories behind something and they're willing to use tools when necessary to get to the core of why/how. Engineers want to build things and they're willing to use theory when it will help the construction.

[...]

The scientist vs. engineer relation is simple, without one, the other could not exist. No scientist can get a thing done, without a half-way descent machinist, (whether it be programming, or actually maching of instruments) Engineers on the other hand, must use every bit of applicable theory, whether it be from pure nature, or academic elitists, to produce something of value. Fuller's edict was "If it works, then it is beautiful." I believe functionality is the key to beauty as well, as functionality is a trait that is quantitative, as well as qualitative. That is where raw science and engineering form a unity, in pure functionality. It is their most common bond, and strongest.From Zephoria.org

As for me, well after I left engineering I registered as an independent student, which is a status I retain to this day. I take courses that interest me because I want to learn more about them, things like psychology, languages, history, philosophy, and some science and engineering classes. I sit in on classes sometimes even when I'm not enrolled in them. With the absence of the usual pressure about grades and studying, I retain so much more from every course than I used to when I was "a student".

There are probably enough credits for a degree (or two) in there somewhere, but I'm not interested in even pursuing that right now. I find that the most fascinating thinking often occurs in the cracks between topics (a great example of this is the remarkable symbiosis we see in interdisciplinary science), not at their summits, so I try to build (myself, my work and my "research") horizontally, not vertically. Finding out how to apply existing ideas to areas where innovation is needed is more valuable to me than constantly trying to push the boundaries and discover "the next big thing" in a selected topic.

You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play. -- Warren Beatty

Does that make me an engineer or a scientist? Probably neither.

Or maybe a "mad scientist"...