One such conflict I've noticed with in recent years arises from the differentiation people feel they need to create between what they perceive or believe should be defined as science (and therefore whether or not someone deserves the distinction of being called a scientist), and that which is not. Specifically, I've seen people calling doctors and engineers non-scientists, as if the work they do is something other than scientific. Personally, I don't understand this prejudice or this separation of worlds. Keeping religion and science separate, that I understand. And I freely acknowledge (perhaps with glee) the distinctions between science and humanities. However, I've noticed that these separations are becoming more and more pronounced, as well. To the point where people separate concepts into STEM (science, technology, engineering, math). The divisions between science and technology and engineering are as bizarre as separating science and medicine. It is about as sensible as calling a 12 string guitar a non-string instrument. Perhaps I've gone too simplistic, but sometimes, when addressing such a debate, I feel it wise to return to the roots of our language, to see if this conflict could arise from the very words we use to speak about a particular subject. Therefore, below I've begun to build from the keystones up to the scaffolding about which we not only build our thoughts but also communicate those thoughts between one another.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
- scientist (n): A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
- research scientist (n): a scientist who works primarily with gathering knowledge and understanding research
- clinical scientist (n): a biomedical scientist (also known as a biomedical doctor or medical scientist or clinical laboratory scientist) is a scientist trained in biology, particularly in the context of medicine.
- applied scientist (n): a person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems.
- Eg: engineer, technologist, doctor, architect
- Pure Science (n): a science depending on deductions from demonstrated truths, such as mathematics or logic, or studied without regard to practical applications.
- Applied science (n): a discipline of science that applies existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications, like technology or inventions.
and a closer analysis of certain subcategories within this original definition:
From my initial analysis, it is already apparent that there is an "or" involved in this realm I am exploring. One of the important things I have already garnered from looking at the original OED definition, and further looking at a few subcategories is one very important component that I feel is often misconstrued due to bias. Objective observation would indicate a scientist to be anyone studying or with expert knowledge in the fields. However, common practice from conversations with colleagues, as well as extensive exploration of the subject on the internet has revealed the expectation that a scientist is: someone who conducts original scientific investigation in an effort to discover previously unknown information utilizing the scientific method.
Yet nothing in the definition of a scientist technically requires this component of originality or previously undiscovered knowledge. So what is causing this argument among communities of people who have common backgrounds (the study of scientific knowledge and expertise in scientific knowledge) yet utilize this knowledge in different veins? If you look above at the definitions of the subcategories I've placed beneath the original broader definition of a scientist, you can perhaps see the glimmer of what I believe is the greater underlying issue at hand.
A research scientist is someone who tends to pursue original research. These are the academics whose grant money from government and private sources fund not only their salaries, but also their labs. Academic labs are the training grounds for new generations of scientists, and the places where new ground is broken for scientific knowledge and technological advances.
From Wikipedia: "A medical laboratory scientist (MLS), also referred to as a clinical laboratory scientist, medical laboratory technologist or medical technologist, is a healthcare professional who performs chemical, hematological, immunologic, histopathological, cytopathological, microscopic, and bacteriological diagnostic analyses on body fluids such as blood, urine, sputum, stool, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), peritoneal fluid, pericardial fluid, and synovial fluid, as well as other specimens. Medical laboratory scientists work in clinical laboratories at hospitals, reference labs, biotechnology labs and non-clinical industrial labs."
Perhaps one of the distinctions necessary with this situation is between the "pure" sciences (theoretical and experimental), and applied sciences.
Now, I'd be the first to admit there are people who try to edge in on the scientific fields with pseudoscience (such as the insultingly poorly-disguised Creationism or slightly better costume make-up of Intelligent Design). There are plenty of material from crackpots and fools who think they have the right to claim to be scientific. It is certainly necessary to defend the world of science from such utter idiotic notions. Let alone those who try to create an association with a name (see Scientology, or Christian Science). We are surrounded with advertisements that vague and misleading statements or outright quotes of false scientific data. We have people who gladly grasp hold of poorly conducted scientific claims, such as the completely and utterly false belief that vaccines cause autism or are a danger to children or others health.
I could rant for days about people who grasp hold of the scientific coattails or attach themselves like parasites to the effective reality of science. I am all for ripping the throats out of false science and pseudoscience. There is no room in this world for the acts of those who would damage or mislead others. It is most assuredly one of our duties to be vigilant and defend ourselves and the public at large from such harmful individuals. But to blatantly build walls between effective fields that are science? That is to effectively discriminate (whether or not that is the intent). Labels are a method of creating conflict.
So why do some people decide to label applied sciences as non-sciences?
Doctors and engineers are scientists. They are applied scientists. They take the knowledge of pure scientists, and use it to better the world. Pure science, without application, is merely so much more acquired knowledge in the backs of dusty libraries, or these days -- more ignored entries on Wikipedia.
Likewise, applied science would not exist nor have continuous improvements to increase the quality of human life, without pure research science. The research scientists/"pure scientists" provide the material that is then applied by appropriate applied scientists to ensure that the knowledge acquired is actually of any real value.
I've found that many people create subdivisions and barriers between as many aspects of the world as they can, so that the world can be better controlled, and through subtle distinction, defined as the dividers prefer. Perhaps it is the old idea of divide and conquer, but what I tend to see is a method of gaining power. Whether it is for money, honor, power, ego, or merely an inability to accept more people into the ranks -- there's always a motivation that drives the need to create an "us vs them". Sometimes, it isn't even conscious. The ability to define self vs other is, after all, at the very origins of life. The cell membrane defines the exterior vs the interior of the cell, creating the definitions of outside and inside. I know quite a few may contend with my arguments and perspectives, but as much as they wish to refute them -- unlike how everyone has opinions and assholes, I'm arguing fact.
Here, I have declared my hypothesis, provided my data, and discussed the outcomes of these different aspects. I've explored theory and application. And this is my conclusion: science is about a method and an approach: evidence-based physical deduction. Ultimately, what I am trying to achieve here, is a unification of individuals whose training and background is something held in common. The only small difference is how some of that information is applied. Why is it necessary to deny one group or another a particular title?
Of course, there's the statement I've heard from medical doctors that PhDs should not wear the title "Dr", and I've seen people with Masters degrees informed that their knowledge and value is less than that of those with a PhD. I've seen people with English PhDs called "Dr", while talented and brilliant scientists whose years have made them far more worthy to be addressed with such distinction.
Ultimately, the world will be as it is, and if this blog post doesn't settle well in your stomach, then -- you're wrong. Just remember, I know better than you.
