Is it Science?

I am currently reading Seeing Further, edited by Bill Bryson, and I'm having a serious beef with some of his authors. Both Georgina Ferry and Philip Ball seem to think that science constitutes discovery and invention both. The following essay will show why they, and many others, are wrong.

I have had this debate before, at a science class meeting with a bunch of liberal arts students. We were asked to define what performing science wa, and my classmates began belting out things like "building bridges" and "making playdough". I casually attempted to set my mistaken colleagues straight, and got nought but angry looks and dismissal for my troubles.

What I told them was this: Science is what happens when you discover something, and Engineering is what happens when you make something. Thus, discovering the tensile properties of balsa wood, and making a model bridge out of that material are two different things. Another good example is that in science you pursue knowledge, whereas in engineering you pursue creation.

My fellow students drownwd me out in their disapproval. Science to them wasn't about gaining knowledge - it was about making cool stuff and then blowing it up!
But really who am I to rain on their parade? From reading Bryson's book it seems thar I am alone in my logical definitions.

Yet I believe it is important that we as humans make a distinction. Discovering the existence of critical densities which produce chain reactions cannot be put in the same category as making an atomic bomb. Why? Because the second example belies intent. And intent is the key difference between the professions.

An engineer sets off on a project with a goal in mind. Using information culled from scientific exploration, the engineer sets about altering materials to produce the creation. The end result is planned, and derivation from that plan is discouraged.

The scientist on the other hand starts with no end product in sight. The scientist's goal is to explain one or a series of observations, or to (cont)