In this blog post, we’ll explore the differences between science and engineering, the reasons why engineering is undervalued, and the need for a proper understanding of engineering.
Scientists and Engineers
Who were the people who worked to send humans to the Moon? Most of them were experts from various fields, including aerospace engineers who developed launch vehicles, atmospheric scientists and astrophysicists who studied the Moon’s environment to determine its habitability for humans, and mechanical engineers who designed vehicles to traverse the lunar surface. In fact, many scientists participated as advisors or conducted research directly, working alongside engineers to complete these projects.
There is always one aspect of these projects that I find particularly fascinating: the process by which scientists and engineers collaborate, drawing on their respective areas of expertise, to achieve a common goal. When I imagine them conducting their research, I picture a process where they repeatedly perform numerous experiments based on scientific theories and then derive engineering solutions based on those results. The process of creating a final product based on a single theory through countless trials and errors is truly fascinating.
However, even though scientists and engineers in these projects do their very best in their respective roles, in reality, engineering is often undervalued compared to science, and there are quite a few people who do not accurately understand the differences between the two fields. As an engineering student, I find this reality deeply regrettable and believe it must be addressed. I would like to discuss why this problem arises and why it needs to be resolved.
What Is Engineering?
First, let’s examine why engineering is undervalued. To understand this, we need to compare the way engineering applies knowledge with the approach taken in pure science.
The first difference lies in their purpose. While science focuses on discovering new knowledge and achieving academic accomplishments, engineering aims to apply that knowledge to solve real-world social problems. While original research is crucial for academic recognition, the key criteria for evaluating technology are the extent of its impact on society and industry and its practical applicability.
The second difference lies in research methods. As discussed earlier, engineering is closely intertwined with society. While science focuses on explaining natural phenomena through rigorous hypothesis testing and experimentation, engineering seeks solutions that work most effectively in the real world through iterative experimentation and validation. In other words, engineering can be described as a discipline that produces results applicable to real-world environments based on sufficient validation and reproducibility rather than absolute certainty.
Although engineering differs significantly in nature from science, it cannot be considered in isolation from it. Science presents theories that explain natural phenomena under controlled, ideal conditions. For example, in fluid mechanics, various equations have already been established; however, since discrepancies arise between theoretical values and actual experimental results, various coefficients and correction factors are applied. Even when real-world results differ from scientific theories, engineering must still be based on science because science provides a reproducible and reliable theoretical foundation. It is precisely this point that often leads to confusion between science and engineering.
The Underestimation of Engineering
In other words, the two fields have very different research directions and objectives. Nevertheless, they are often perceived as a single entity because their modes of expression are similar. Both fields use the same terminology, employ equations and models to explain theories, and share common methods for accurately conveying information to others. Because of these similarities, science and engineering are often perceived as belonging to the same academic category, even though they have different purposes and identities.
This social perception is also one of the reasons engineering is undervalued.
Engineering is often misunderstood as a discipline less rigorous than science, or perceived as a field that hinders the advancement of basic science. In South Korea, winning a Nobel Prize is frequently cited as a benchmark for scientific and technological competitiveness, but this discussion primarily pertains to the field of pure science. In contrast, a significant number of the core technologies that determine industrial competitiveness are realized through engineering. However, because the terms “science” and “engineering” are used without clear distinction, people inevitably confuse the two fields.
The second reason is public perception. Many people have stereotypical images in mind when they think of scientists and engineers. Because they do not accurately understand the difference between science and engineering, it is not uncommon for them to view engineers as synonymous with scientists or to perceive them simply as technicians. As a result, a stereotype has formed that engineering is a physically demanding profession. This vague perception often leads to misunderstandings about the field of engineering itself.
A Clear Understanding of Engineering
Therefore, I believe it is necessary to help students understand the difference between science and engineering more clearly. This is because societal perceptions of engineering are one of the factors that cause hesitation in pursuing careers in science and engineering. South Korea maintains a high global ranking in both the scale of its research and development (R&D) investment and the proportion of R&D investment relative to its gross domestic product (GDP). Nevertheless, in some fields, there is a persistent trend of students avoiding STEM fields, and societal perceptions of engineering also play a role in this phenomenon. Given that students place significant weight on societal perceptions when choosing their career paths, this problem is likely to persist unless these perceptions improve. Furthermore, various studies conducted among students have repeatedly revealed distorted images of engineers, and it has been reported that these perceptions influence their future career choices.
Furthermore, while an understanding of science is covered relatively thoroughly in the curriculum, education that enables students to understand engineering itself remains insufficient. In fact, although many students pursue engineering, they rarely have the opportunity to fully grasp the philosophy or social significance of engineering. Consequently, even after enrolling in engineering programs, a significant number of students do not have the chance to deeply reflect on why they are studying engineering.
Including an understanding of engineering in the curriculum does not necessarily guarantee an immediate improvement in perceptions. Nor can we assume that a precise understanding of engineering will automatically change all students’ career choices. However, some countries incorporate technology and engineering education into their curricula at a relatively early stage to help students understand the technology field and explore various career paths. These examples serve as a useful reference for reflecting on the importance of engineering education.
What It Means to Improve Perceptions
In fact, distinguishing between science and engineering and teaching their differences may seem somewhat pointless. Even now, many students learn these two fields without clearly distinguishing between them, and society often does not perceive this as a major problem.
However, I believe that while we discuss the advancement of engineering and pursue various policies to enhance national competitiveness, society’s understanding of engineering itself remains insufficient. Therefore, this change must begin at the most fundamental level: the curriculum. If we correctly understand the role of engineering—which has solved real-world problems based on science—our existing perceptions of these disciplines will also shift toward a more balanced perspective.
