An interesting topic. I agree the two terms are usually imprecisely joined. But I think the author's definition is too binary. Science and engineering are a

An interesting topic. I agree the two terms are usually imprecisely joined. But I think the author's definition is too binary. Science and engineering are a continuum. At one end is the theoretical scientist who discovers new knowledge; at the other the engineer who applies knowledge to serve some practical end. But between them lies the applied scientist whose purpose is to extend scientific knowledge to make it valuable to scientists working in other domains. And the process of doing that always involves lots of engineering -- discovering the reproducible limits of a phenomenon or a technique toward achieving some goal. Inevitably then, many applied scientists and engineers share the same job. For example: Were Salk and Sabin scientists or were they engineers when they refined a method to inoculate against polio? Certainly they were applying science, but what was their principal role: a) discovering new knowledge or b) refining a technique? Once it moves from the petri dish to the human, isn't medicine usually more like engineering than science? As I see it, at some point the boundary between science vs engineering blurs to an a degree that the difference is negligible.