Scientists and engineers: What do you think the difference is?

Having worked as both now, I’ve become interested in the debate. There are a fair amount of articles published on the question, many by people that are neither that appear to have no idea what they are talking about. I disagree with all that I’ve read so far. Some people, for example, argue that scientists are more comfortable with the unknown. They would be shocked to learn how many uncertainties the engineer encounters in designing a building, bridge, or airplane, and perhaps surprised at the increasingly sophisticated methods engineers have devised to deal with these unknowns head on.

To me, the main difference (in general, of course there are always exceptions!) is that scientists have a very poor understanding of, and ability to do, math and physics, and aren’t that technically savvy when it comes to using computers and other technology. This is troubling to me because math and technology are powerful tools that can be used to explain a lot of the phenomena scientists observe (and help them work more efficiently), and everything they do is constrained by physics. They tend to be dreamers and idealists. They seek knowledge and understanding.

Math, physics, and the understanding of technology seem to come naturally to the engineer, but they have a very poor understanding of biology. This is troubling since much of the work engineers do disturbs the natural world. They are realistic and practical. They seek to solve real and immediate problems.

Indeed, many engineering schools seem to eliminate the biological science requirement and natural science degrees require only a high school level of understanding of math and physics.

I think both fields would benefit from a “cross pollination” of ideas and ways of thinking. An example: I took a class in Natural Resources Management (an applied science) where the professor outlined the problem that an increasing amount of woody vegetation on savannah grasslands was occurring due to an anthropogenic disruption in the natural fire regime of the region. The land is used for cattle grazing; cattle do not eat woody veg only grass. His solution was to change fire management practices. I suggested graziers introduce goats confined to the areas with woody vegetation (goats are browsers and prefer woody veg, but there are some species they can’t eat). Goats would bring another income source. He hadn’t even considered this as a possibility, and stuck with his original position that fire management would be ideal since it would be “more natural”. But there’s nothing natural about the landscape now anyway, seeing as it has been used for livestock grazing for many generations. It’s possible that goats wouldn’t work due to water constraints or the type of woody vegetation on the land, but these kinds of questions should be answered before a position on the issue is formed.