Sigh. Don't understand why it's such a big deal. Case in point in the intersection between CS/Biology/EE:
Programming has completely revolutionized Biology not even in terms of introducing databases to volumes of genomic data but in terms of forcing geneticists to think in terms of algorithms and coding practices in DNA transcription/translation.
Advances in Biology in neural imaging and evolutionary genetics have been introduced in artificial neural networks and evolutionary computing algorithms; some of which ironically are used to solve Biology problems, protein folding/disease modeling.
Advances in biomedical engineering from applied silicon wafer design has made expensive equipment such as DNA replication (PCR machines), sequencing and genetic expression (DNA microarrays) accessible to every lab. To reciprocate, Biologists are building organic circuits to eventually build a self-replicating bio-computer.
Sometimes as a scientist, you have to do engineering work to build the tools to investigate a new phenomenon. Sometimes as an engineer, you have to do some science research to build a new widget that's not been built before. It's all the same to me.
Would you hire a physicist and material scientist to design you a bridge? Or the civil engineer?
You are right, there are degrees of each profession in each other. No one (not the least the IEEE) will deny that. But that's a huge leap to 'It's all the same to me'.
This is like saying 'oh, as a sysadmin I periodically have to write scripts and small programs' and therefore there's no big deal conflating sysadmins and being a programmer/developer.
Also, to nitpick a bit... biologists aren't building organic circuits. Biologists along with bio-engineers (and a whole buttload of other engineers) are building organic circuits.
Yes, there will be exceptional people who so perfectly blend scientist and engineer, that in that person, the two become the same. But as a whole, they are two intertwined, but separate things.
I agree entirely. I imagine the reason why the media lumps science and engineering together is because they really are inseparable in driving technological progress. The article suggests that not recognizing the difference between the two could lead to misinformed decision-making, but if a politician for example decided to exclude one or the other from a decision, that's an even bigger mistake.
Programming has completely revolutionized Biology not even in terms of introducing databases to volumes of genomic data but in terms of forcing geneticists to think in terms of algorithms and coding practices in DNA transcription/translation.
Advances in Biology in neural imaging and evolutionary genetics have been introduced in artificial neural networks and evolutionary computing algorithms; some of which ironically are used to solve Biology problems, protein folding/disease modeling.
Advances in biomedical engineering from applied silicon wafer design has made expensive equipment such as DNA replication (PCR machines), sequencing and genetic expression (DNA microarrays) accessible to every lab. To reciprocate, Biologists are building organic circuits to eventually build a self-replicating bio-computer.
Sometimes as a scientist, you have to do engineering work to build the tools to investigate a new phenomenon. Sometimes as an engineer, you have to do some science research to build a new widget that's not been built before. It's all the same to me.