What is strange is that people have attached a "scientist" label to a role that they say its primary purpose is: > exist to create business value with data If

What is strange is that people have attached a "scientist" label to a role that they say its primary purpose is: > exist to create business value with data If you want someone to essentially not be a scientist, don't call them a scientist. Calling them a scientist and then complaining that they are not relentlessly obsessed with creating "business value" is just a broken idea in the first place. The reality is, people have jumped on this label as part of the hype cycle : employers want to pretend they have real data scientist positions so they can look good to their board / investors / PR, and so they can attract top talent, while employees want to put it on their resume because they think these skills will be valuable. Neither is going to get what they want when the hype fades. It reminds me of how a long (long) time ago programmers used to be called computer scientists. It has taken a few decades but we finally now got to a position where we hire people for roles that actually correspond to what they do ... but I feel like this is now the pathway that ML / data science is on.